Phase 1 - Scoping and preflight
Name project and owners. Confirm record boundary, read-only access, legal/security path, budget, limits classification, measurement plan, human-loop staffing, stop conditions.
A proposed pilot would measure the human baseline first, then compare a configured instrument against it.
The limits are launch conditions, so the result schema keeps all four outcomes and confidence comes from adjudicated data.
The proposed protocol runs a one-project measurement pilot in shadow mode.
The pilot runs read-only in shadow mode on one project and never changes a decision about real work. On expert-adjudicated data, it measures the human review baseline, why reviewers disagree and which claims the record can decide.
Each lane ends in stop, narrow, human assist or later limited use. The protocol on its own authorizes neither pilot work nor automated enforcement.
Phase one confirms the record boundary, read-only access, owners and stop conditions. Phase two measures reviewer performance and expert agreement, phase three tests the configured instrument on held-out cases, and phase four runs in shadow. Shadow mode scores read-only work without changing any decision.
Each phase ends in a gate, a stop rule or a return. A human loop that never changes outcomes is a reason to stop.
The protocol is one any team could run. The protocol covers adjudicated gold data, evaluator calibration, ablations, launch gates and drift monitoring. The current pilot design starts from its authority boundary, read-only, shadow mode and no change to any decision about real work.
A team could run this protocol after it adopts the limits and a scoping pass returns facts. The protocol on its own authorizes neither pilot work nor automated enforcement.
Authority boundary: read-only, shadow-mode. No production enforcement, automated rejection, pay or account decisions, or expansion beyond one project. No use of AutoQA as a casting vote to manufacture consensus.
Published evidence does not answer these for this task and configuration. Measure on untouched, expert-adjudicated data. See research and evidence.
The pilot may run only inside the capability-limits analysis:
Name project and owners. Confirm record boundary, read-only access, legal/security path, budget, limits classification, measurement plan, human-loop staffing, stop conditions.
Measure current reviewer performance and expert agreement. Tag disagreement causes. Compile instructions into versioned, testable criteria with explicit ambiguity and insufficiency outcomes.
Stop: no stable record boundary, instruction owner, or adjudication capacity.
Development and held-out cases. Measure extraction, discovery, criterion-level judgment, false accusations, misses, abstention, cost for the exact instrument. Test one-interaction human resolution packets.
Stop or narrow: no useful risk-coverage region, no improvement over baseline, unaffordable expert/compute cost, or HITL that never changes outcomes (decoration loop).
Score read-only work without changing dispositions. Blind audit and challenge sets. Test evidence-first human assistance. Report lane-level results and disagreement-cause mix.
Return: stop, narrow, human-assist only, or consider later lane-specific proposal.
| Measurement | Why | Decision it informs |
|---|---|---|
| Expert agreement by criterion | Bounds validation; surfaces unresolved interpretation | Can this criterion support validation or stay judgment-owned? |
| Disagreement cause mix | Stops treating all non-consensus as error | Where to fix instructions vs train vs route experts |
| Human baseline | Separates improvement from model agreement | Does the system add useful signal? |
| Claim-extraction recall | End-to-end recall cannot exceed claims found | Which formats stay in scope? |
| Evidence-discovery recall | Absence and long-record coverage need plants | May a lane assert contradiction or only "evidence found"? |
| False accusations / misses by lane | Aggregate accuracy hides rights-critical error | Authority map per lane |
| Escalation change rate | Human load-bearing vs decoration | Packet design and routing quality |
| Abstention under volume stress | Detect KPI override of honesty | Whether governance holds under pressure |
Version: 1.0-grounded
Checked: 2026-07-22
Estimate the performance and consequences of one pinned AutoQA configuration on one named task and population. The protocol does not produce a general certificate.
Before accessing the locked test set, record:
| Split | Use |
|---|---|
| Development | Rule, prompt, parser, and interface iteration |
| Locked representative test | Primary estimates on the intended population |
| Challenge | Rare consequential errors, long records, planted evidence, gaming, malformed inputs, ambiguity |
| Temporal/transfer | Later records or changed populations/configurations |
Measure ingestion completeness, parse errors, candidate recall, retrieval recall, judgment performance conditional on adequate evidence, abstention/coverage, and end-to-end performance. If the pipeline is candidate-gated, end-to-end recall cannot exceed candidate recall (P05).
For each lane report:
Recommended arms:
Randomize at a unit that limits contamination. Blind final adjudicators to arm where possible. Account for repeated observations by reviewer and item. The primary outcome should be reference-correct decisions. Secondary outcomes may include completion time, correction rate, reliance when the suggestion is wrong, overrides, perceived usefulness, and performance over repeated exposure.
Choose sample sizes for the consequential error and required interval precision. For zero observed independent representative Bernoulli failures, the exact one-sided upper bound is 1 - alpha^(1/n) (S01). Do not use this illustration when the sample is not representative, events are dependent, prevalence is unknown, or the outcome is not binary.
Challenge-test fabricated citations, prompt injection, hidden text, malformed documents, contradictory instructions, evidence hiding, strategic over-documentation, and unsupported justifications. Preserve raw inputs and outputs needed for incident reconstruction, subject to the approved retention rule.
Immediate stop: unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized write-back, unreconstructable configuration, automated adverse action outside authorization, or confirmed material compromise.
Review stop: consequential error above the prespecified threshold, unstable reference process, major distribution shift, or a configuration change that invalidates the frozen comparison.
Decide separately for every lane: stop, revise/retest, shadow, advisory, or authority review. Record evidence, limitations, residual uncertainty, owner, monitoring, appeal path, expiration/review date, and change triggers.
Blank templates from the 1.0-grounded edition dated 2026-07-22 and from the foundation package.
| File | Format | Size | SHA-256 |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs/gold-set-template.csv | CSV | 0.2 KB | 9b1015475102 |
| docs/pilot-results-template.csv | CSV | 0.3 KB | 31f2c7094631 |
| foundation/templates/criterion-authoring-template.csv | CSV | 0.5 KB | 273d0a921339 |
| foundation/templates/gold-set-template.csv | CSV | 0.6 KB | fe10577fe0dc |
| foundation/templates/model-bakeoff-template.csv | CSV | 0.6 KB | 271c3846fbe9 |
| docs/decision-record-template.md | MD | 1.1 KB | fb8f935f9cb3 |
| docs/evaluation-report-template.md | MD | 1.7 KB | 092dd188e94f |
| Lane | Coverage | Consequential false-positive estimate | Consequential false-negative estimate | Reference uncertainty | Human effect | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-
Decision rationale:
State the exact configuration, task, population, dates, and authority evaluated. Do not generalize beyond them.
| Component | Version / hash |
|---|---|
| Model | |
| Prompt | |
| Instructions | |
| Schema | |
| Parser | |
| Retrieval index | |
| Tools | |
| Post-processing | |
| Interface |
| Lane | Unit | Admitted evidence | Outcome set | Authority | Consequential FP | Consequential FN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Describe sampling, raters, blinding, evidence spans, ambiguity, disagreement, adjudication, exclusions, and missing data.
Report development, locked representative, challenge, and temporal/transfer sets, including prevalence and record-length distribution.
For each lane: full confusion matrix, class-specific metrics, coverage/abstention, candidate and evidence recall, uncertainty intervals, calibration where applicable, cost, latency, and failures.
Report assignment, arm balance, correctness, time, reliance when AutoQA is wrong, corrections, overrides, experience effects, and attrition/missing outcomes.
Report each challenge family, denominators, observed failures, severity, and mitigations.
State what the study cannot establish, including transfer, rare cases, reference uncertainty, untested configurations, and changes after the evaluation window.
| Lane | Stop | Revise | Shadow | Advisory | Authority review | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How to construct adjudicated gold data, calibrate evaluators, run ablations, set launch gates, and monitor drift.
Prediction-powered inference, selective escalation, conformal routing, calibration, and drift attribution.
Source: site/pilot.html