Fine-tuning lab
Instrument training runs and serve-time adapter IDs
Page 6 advances one concrete LoRA adapter for support-tone behavior: explain the decision, run the code, inspect failure, measure evidence, and keep only what is ready to ship.
Before you start
Why this matters
Predict which three fields must appear in one log or metric event to compare two versions of the LoRA adapter for support-tone behavior. What raw payload should never be logged at info level?
1Learn the idea
Read
Build focus
Instrumentation should explain behavior without collecting raw material unnecessarily. For this artifact, record enough to calculate or monitor format adherence and tone scores improve vs base without factual holdout regression. Include version or configuration identifiers so two runs can be compared. A log line is useful only if it answers a debugging question.
Track run_id, data_version, base model, adapter_id, and eval table. Serve-time logs must show which adapter_id answered.
The artifact's user-facing goal is specific: stabilize response format and tone with LoRA while leaving facts to retrieval. Its accepted input is curated instruction examples split by intent into train, validation, and held-out test. Those statements are intentionally narrower than “build an AI system.” Narrow scope lets us inspect every input and expected result, and it prevents a toy result from being presented as a production claim. System shape for this chapter: a curated dataset is split by intent and source into train, validation, and untouched test sets; a pinned instruct model receives a low-rank adapter; evaluation compares base, prompt-only, and adapted outputs; serving loads the adapter as a versioned artifact beside retrieval. Keep model calls behind adapters, keep authorization and validation in deterministic code, and carry stable IDs and versions through every response. That separation lets you decide whether a bad result came from input handling, retrieval, inference, validation, or deployment. This page's job is the testing and observability step: instrumentation should explain behavior without collecting raw material unnecessarily. Setup baseline for the chapter (run once per machine, not secrets in git):
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
# Training stack varies by GPU; pin versions in requirements.
pip install pyyaml
mkdir -p data/train data/val data/test adapters
If hardware or a hosted provider differs, preserve the interface and expected behavior. Do not present provider syntax as universal—when a vendor adapter is unavoidable, keep it behind a thin boundary and test with a fake first. The deliverable is not “it ran once”; it is a reproducible artifact another developer can inspect, including expected output and one deliberate failure related to adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality. Operationally, write down the owner of this stage, the command you ran, the observed output, and the next page's dependency on that output. If you cannot point to a file, fixture, metric, or config key, the stage is not done. Prefer small, reviewable increments: one contract, one path, one metric, one failure, one gate. When tradeoffs appear—latency versus quality, hit rate versus false hits, local privacy versus cloud quality—record both numbers instead of moving the threshold until the report looks green. The chapter ships only when evidence for format adherence and tone scores improve vs base without factual holdout regression and a rehearsed recovery path exist beside versioned LoRA adapter loaded at serve time with ADAPTER_ID rollback.
Read
Run the example
Save this as lesson.py and run python3 lesson.py. Prefer the standard library or the pinned packages from the setup block so the example stays reproducible.
run={"run_id":"ft-17","adapter_id":"tone-v3","base":"instruct-mini","data_version":"support-2026-07"}
print(run)
Expected output: run metadata with adapter_id. Exact floating-point formatting may vary slightly, but the asserted behavior must not. Read the output as evidence about this stage, not merely proof that the interpreter started.
Read
Debug the stage
Compare two events from different versions on the same fixture. Divergent IDs or statuses need an eval note before traffic moves. At the testing and observability stage, save the smallest failing fixture beside the expected result. Change one cause at a time and rerun the exact command printed above; that makes the repair reviewable and keeps this chapter's progressive artifact reproducible.
Read
Evaluate before continuing
Dashboards or reports should slice by version pins. Alerts should fire on safety failures immediately. For this testing and observability page, preserve the fixture and result as evidence for the next page. Label observations separately from conclusions: a passing assertion establishes the behavior it names, while broader usefulness requires the chapter's full evaluation set and stated operating limits. Primary metrics for the chapter remain format adherence and tone scores improve vs base without factual holdout regression.
Continue learning · glossary & guides
- [ ] Can an event distinguish configuration, failure class, and duration?
- [ ] Did I avoid logging secrets or unnecessary raw input?
- [ ] Can two runs be compared with the recorded fields?
- [ ] Would these events diagnose adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality?
Glossary: LoRA · How-to: train LoRA adapter · Cheatsheet: LoRA vs RAG · Snippet: LoRA config