Page 1 of 8~112 min topic

LLM tracing lab

Define the lab goal and success criteria

Ship a falsifiable slice of **OpenTelemetry traces across retrieve → rerank → generate for support answers** — success is fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root, not a polished screenshot.

~14 min this pageLab goal

1Try it yourself

Decision drill

Tracing lab

Read the spans, pick the broken step. Deep arcade mode opens Tracing detective.

Diagnosis accuracy55%

1/3User got cookie bake time = 3 hours. Trace: embed ok → retrieve returned a poisoned chunk → generate followed it.

2Learn the idea

Read

Name the operable slice

This lab builds OpenTelemetry traces across retrieve → rerank → generate for support answers. The human in the loop is on-call engineer debugging a slow groundedness miss. Scope is intentionally narrower than “make AI reliable”: you will prove one oracle — fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root — and one invariant — every span carries trace_id + redacted attrs; prompts sampled ≤ 1%. Record non-goals in your notes so a later change cannot silently expand authority. The incident mnemonic for the chapter is TRACE-ORPHAN-441; design as if that ticket is already written and you are filling evidence.

Read

Write the acceptance contract

Turn the oracle into a table: input fixture, expected observable, prohibited side effect, owner, latency/cost ceiling. Separate model taste from software correctness — transport, auth, parsing, and termination must be deterministic even when generated text varies. Primary metric family: trace_completeness ≥ 0.99 and p95_end_to_end_ms ≤ 2500. Averages without a denominator or revision label do not gate release. Fake external dependencies in unit tests; live calls wait until fakes pass.

Read

Implementation artifact

ATTRS = ("gen_ai.operation.name", "retrieval.hit_count", "answer.grounded", "http.route")

Read

Freeze the first red test

Before implementation, encode a failing check that would have caught missing parent context → orphan spans, cannot join retrieve to answer. That failure is the pedagogical north star for later pages: contracts reject it, happy path never performs it, validation asserts it, failure-handling contains it, observability detects it, security-ops prevents privilege tricks around it, and mastery replays it in a drill. Endpoint under study: POST /v1/support/answer.

Read

Stage depth

Capacity note for planners: estimate peak demand on POST /v1/support/answer and the cost ceiling for a failed retry storm. Write the abort conditions — unbounded spend, cross-tenant leakage, or inability to roll back — before you enjoy the first green test. Prefer synthetic fixtures shaped like production over anonymized production dumps you cannot share in class. When you are tempted to widen scope, re-read the oracle (fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root) and cut features that do not serve it. The teaching outcome is judgment under constraints: on-call engineer debugging a slow groundedness miss gets a trustworthy control, not a kitchen-sink framework. Keep the language of release decisions: promote, hold, or roll back — never “see if it gets better.”

Read

Field notes for `llm-tracing-lab` / `lab-goal`

Decide what will live in version control on day one: fixtures, contract markdown, and a failing test name. Write the cost ceiling as a hard number with currency and period. If the lab involves clusters, name the non-prod context you will use and forbid prod kubecontexts in scripts. Capture the baseline metric once before changing code so later gains are comparative. Refuse tools that hide the request path behind magic macros until the oracle is green on fakes. Your README section for this page should be five lines or fewer and still falsifiable. In this chapter the product is OpenTelemetry traces across retrieve → rerank → generate for support answers, the human stakeholder is on-call engineer debugging a slow groundedness miss, and the incident id you design against is TRACE-ORPHAN-441. Re-state the oracle in your notes — fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root — and keep the invariant visible: every span carries trace_id + redacted attrs; prompts sampled ≤ 1%. Track trace_completeness ≥ 0.99 and p95_end_to_end_ms ≤ 2500 as the scoreboard. Surface under change control: POST /v1/support/answer.

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Write the single done-definition a reviewer would accept for LLM tracing lab (TRACE-ORPHAN-441). Include the numeric gate hidden in this oracle: fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root. Then name the fake success you refuse: a demo that ignores missing parent context → orphan spans, cannot join retrieve to answer. Keep the sentence beside your editor; every later page should make this sentence easier to prove.

In the wild

See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. Is the oracle (fixture question produces 3 child spans; total latency attributes sum within 5% of root) falsifiable from a fixture?
2. Is the invariant (every span carries trace_id + redacted attrs; prompts sampled ≤ 1%) stated without hand-waving?
3. Does the contract name TRACE-ORPHAN-441 as a risk you design against?

All responses are required.