# A convincing answer still needs a proper check. · People disagree about acceptable quality

All stories are fictional. They do not describe specific people, companies or projects. Any resemblance is coincidental.

A tool produces documents quickly and the leader likes the first examples. A closer review reveals missing conditions and incorrect conclusions. Participants disagree about quality because they assess different aspects of the text and have not agreed a shared evaluation method.

## Where we could start

Define usable output with users and relevant specialists. Prepare ordinary and difficult examples, evaluation criteria and a process for resolving disputed assessments.

## What you would have

An evaluation brief covering examples, quality requirements, significant errors and the people responsible for assessment.

## Participants

The task owner, people using the output and specialists qualified to check its content.

## Roles and decisions

I organise requirements preparation and evaluation. Specialists assess domain accuracy; the task owner makes the final decision about use.

## Factual experience, separate from the fictional story

MVP Lab / Pivot: Client requirements, approvals, demonstrations and release review.
https://apiperson.com/experience/#work-pivot

Keiss Media: Managing digital campaigns: client requests, estimates, budgets, suppliers and delivery.
https://apiperson.com/experience/#work-keiss

[People disagree about acceptable quality](https://apiperson.com/ai/ai-evaluation/criteria/)

[Requirements are clear, but errors appear unpredictably](https://apiperson.com/ai/ai-evaluation/errors/)

[The output looks suitable, but reviewing it takes too much work](https://apiperson.com/ai/ai-evaluation/review-effort/)

[Book a 30-minute call](https://calendar.app.google/4FrxQkHkAZ32PkzA9)

mailto:apiperson.com@gmail.com