Three key insights you'll gain
The strategic blend of buy + build.
Explore why leading organizations leverage both off-the-shelf AI solutions and custom RAG applications—and how to determine which workflows demand bespoke development.
A systematic evaluation roadmap.
Master the four levels of query complexity (L1-L4) and how targeted technical and human evaluation methods transform the vague "Is it good enough?" question into concrete, measurable criteria for production readiness.
Our Bento platform for scalable success.
Discover our modular, platform-based approach that transforms GenAI application development from bespoke artisanal work into repeatable engineering—without sacrificing quality or customization.
Unblock your organization and move beyond demos into production
Over the last two years, we've built and launched RAG + Agent applications across multiple industries—each time tackling the same critical question: how do we know when an application is ready for launch?
Our field-tested methodology for moving beyond a basic prompt-based demo addresses the three most pressing deployment roadblocks: accurate evaluation, query complexity management, and human-AI collaboration.
Whether you're the CTO driving innovation strategy, a data scientist implementing evaluation frameworks, or a product manager balancing features with reliability, this whitepaper provides actionable guidance for establishing systematic quality standards that will help you make confident deployment decisions.
White paper preview
Quality Assurance: Measuring What Matters
Claude, GPT-4, and other leading models score impressively on these tests. You'll find these metrics prominently displayed in research papers and technical documentation, alongside other benchmarks like MSMARCO (for search relevance) or BigBench (for reasoning).
But here's the critical insight: these benchmarks tell you almost nothing about how well an AI will perform on your specific business tasks. A model that excels at answering academic questions about monopoly theory might completely fail when trying to extract insights from your company's financial documents, compliance records, or customer service logs.
The gap between benchmark performance and business value remains enormous. When building RAG applications that connect AI models to your proprietary knowledge, you need evaluation metrics that actually align with how your users judge quality—metrics that capture accuracy, relevance, and business context in ways no academic benchmark can.
Beyond Benchmarks: Use a systematic process for evaluating GenAI applications
When building GenAI applications, some of our early projects experienced real problems when a model that had great ML performance scores (for example, high BLEU or F1 retrieval scores), ended up failing to perform from the perspective of an end user. We would have users grading a technically “correct” response as a failure with reasons like, “It just misses the judgment call that I’d make.” “It looked at the right document, but that’s not the right nuance in the answer.”
While it’s tempting to try to find one metric (e.g. 100% accuracy) as the go-to metric for measuring everything about the GenAI’s performance, a too-narrow focus on creating a single metric misses the real goal—a good user experience that helps them get a job done.
Our systematic approach
Here's how our systematic process works. Given an ask to build a GenAI Knowledge App, we should first begin by understanding all the likely types of questions that the app will have to handle.
Since conversational models are open-ended and might be asked to handle many different types of queries, we use a layered strategy to quantify model correctness on the deterministic parts of the response and give humans the tools to quickly qualitatively assess the nuanced and rationale-driven parts of the response.
The simplest queries can be measured with a pure retrieval accuracy score (Did it get the right chunk of information?) and the questions requiring more complex rationale need to be handled either manually by humans or through a more complex automated evaluation workflow.
To effectively categorize and evaluate these different query complexities, we've developed a framework based on four distinct types of queries...