Anyone can score fluency.
Few can judge correctness.
Generic annotators can tell you what's fluent. They can't reliably tell you what's correct, sound, or safe. That gap is what we close.
From task set to structured, actionable output.
Reviewers do not always agree. Where they don't, the disagreement is surfaced and resolved rather than averaged into a meaningless middle.
- Task designA set spanning the capability range
- Model outputThe responses to be judged
- Expert reviewSpecialists score against your rubric
- DisagreementReviewers reach different verdicts
- AdjudicationResolved, not averaged away
- DeliveryScores, critiques, and rationale
What evaluation measures
One output. Five independent judgments.
- ReasoningStep-by-step logic assessed for soundness, not just the final answer.
- SafetyRefusals and edge cases judged against your policy, not a generic standard.
- AccuracySubject-matter correctness verified by specialists in the field.
- RobustnessConstraint adherence under compound and conflicting instructions.
- AlignmentDisagreement between reviewers surfaced and resolved, not averaged away.
ModelOutputEvaluationFeedbackback to the model
Axis 1 of 5: Reasoning.
What we assess
Evaluating what fluency hides.
When correctness, reasoning, or safety is on the line, the evaluator needs to be as capable as the task.
Open-ended answers
Explanations and long-form responses where correctness isn't a string match.
Reasoning traces
Step-by-step logic assessed for soundness, not just for arriving at the right answer.
Safety boundaries
Refusals and edge-case handling judged against your policy, not a generic standard.
Tool use
Function-calling behaviour checked for correctness, sequencing, and safety.
Instruction-following
Constraint adherence under compound and conflicting instructions.
Domain correctness
Subject-matter accuracy verified by specialists in the relevant field.
How it runs
Calibrated against your definition of quality.
A rubric is only useful if the people applying it agree on what it means. We calibrate reviewers before production work begins and keep measuring them against it.
Task design
We build a task set that spans the capability range and difficulty you need measured.
Expert review
Specialists evaluate each output against a rubric calibrated to your definition of quality.
Adjudication
Disagreement between reviewers is surfaced and resolved rather than averaged away.
Delivery
Preference labels, structured critiques with rationale, severity-rated issue logs, and rubric-based scores.
Who does the work
Evaluation is bounded by evaluator capability.
We staff each project with people qualified in the domain being assessed, then calibrate them against your rubric before production work begins.
- Domain specialists
- Research-trained reviewers
- Safety practitioners
- Linguists
- Subject-matter experts
- Calibrated adjudicators
Measure what your benchmarks are missing.
Tell us the capability you need assessed and how you define quality. We'll design the task set, the rubric, and the reviewer pool around it.