Cycle time
Time from intake to first useful action, reviewer decision, escalation, or completed handoff.
Private Evals
Measure AI against your organization, not only public benchmarks.
AI success should not be measured only by adoption, excitement, or AI model leaderboard performance. Verdify helps teams define private evals and outcome metrics that show whether the workflow is faster, more accurate, easier to supervise, and worth expanding.
Discuss Private EvalsMetric categories
Private evals should prove operational change, not AI excitement.
Verdify defines metrics that can support a concrete expand, hold, tune, or stop decision.
Acceptance rate
Share of drafts, recommendations, routes, or evidence packets accepted without major rewrite.
False recommendation rate
Incorrect routes, unsafe suggestions, missing caveats, unsupported claims, or low-quality actions.
Reviewer override rate
How often qualified reviewers reject, edit, reroute, or escalate AI output.
Trace completeness
Whether outputs include source links, evidence packets, approval trail, and system-of-record references.
Exception backlog
Whether AI reduces or increases unresolved edge cases, blocked reviews, and ambiguous handoffs.
Data quality issues
Missing fields, stale records, conflicting sources, calibration gaps, and source-system defects exposed by the workflow.
Drift indicators
Changes in acceptance, error, override, or incident patterns after launch.
Mission or operating impact
Cost, recovery, retention, service level, review throughput, or revenue-protection signals tied to the workflow.
Known limits
What the scorecard does not prove yet and which limitations block expansion.
Three-layer eval
A practical private eval tracks three layers.
The names change by workflow, but the operating question is the same: did the workflow improve, did control health stay defensible, and did the system learn from expert feedback?
Flow efficiency
Turnaround time, backlog age, manual touches, and first-pass completeness.
Control health
Missing-source rate, unsupported-claim rate, override rate, stale-document rate, and exception aging.
Mission or operating outcome
Deal speed, release safety, review findings, approval lag, repeat defects, readiness drill speed, or yield loss.
Learning quality
Whether corrections, reviewer decisions, outcome labels, and traces improve future outputs.
Evidence from the lab
Evidence from the lab: useful AI claims need observable outcomes.
Verdify Lab uses public telemetry and scorecards to show what changed, what did not, and what remains limited. An organizational workflow needs private metrics, but the same proof discipline.
Discuss Private EvalsWhat transfers to private evals
Define the baseline, target band, evidence source, owner, and caveat for every metric.
Track reviewer acceptance, override, false recommendation, trace completeness, exception backlog, and mission or operating impact.
Use private evals to decide expand, tune, hold, or stop instead of treating adoption as proof.
Deliverables
A private-evals engagement turns judgment into an operating cadence.
The goal is not just a dashboard. The goal is a repeatable decision system for whether the workflow should expand, hold, tune, or stop.
KPI definition
Metric names, formulas, source systems, owners, baseline window, target bands, and caveats.
Private eval rubric
Pass/fail or scored criteria for draft quality, source traceability, risk flags, missing evidence, reviewer confidence, and outcome fit.
Review cadence
Weekly or monthly scorecard review agenda, exception taxonomy, incident review template, and expansion gate.
Dashboard specification
Fields, filters, data joins, chart requirements, access rules, and reporting narrative for executives.
Example eval gate
A workflow expands only when the evidence supports it.
Verdify defines gate criteria before the team adds more tools, users, or action authority.
Expand
Acceptance rate is stable, false recommendations are below threshold, trace completeness is high, and known limits do not block the next approved action.
Tune
The workflow is useful but needs prompt, retrieval, routing, approval, logging, or source-data improvements before expansion.
Stop
Failure modes are unacceptable, source evidence is too weak, or the workflow cannot be measured well enough to defend.
Private evals are useful when AI is already plausible but not proven.
Good fit when
You have a pilot or live workflow but weak organization-specific evidence.
Reviewers accept, reject, or override AI output.
Leadership needs an expansion decision.
The workflow has logs, tickets, documents, telemetry, or operating events to measure.
Not a fit when
You only want vanity adoption metrics.
No one can define what success means.
The workflow has no observable output or review trail.
You are not willing to publish or discuss known limits internally.
FAQ
Common buyer questions.
What should private evals measure?
They should measure the organization's own work: cycle time, acceptance rate, reviewer overrides, false recommendations, exception backlog, trace completeness, data quality, drift indicators, mission or operating impact, and whether expert corrections improve the system.
Can we use the scorecard before implementation?
Yes. Defining private evals before implementation prevents teams from shipping a workflow they cannot measure against mission and operating outcomes.
Is this a dashboard project?
Not primarily. Dashboards may be part of the output, but the main work is defining metrics, evidence sources, review cadence, and decision rules for expansion.