Ship and explain the RAG quality audit report

A shippable lab artifact includes: how to run it, the metric result (citation precision, unsupported answer rate, abstention correctness), the failure you can still reproduce (scoring fluency instead of citation support, or mixing docs versions in one report), the security gate for publishing golden questions that contain real customer PII, and a rollback note. The user decision it supports remains: turn golden questions, expected evidence IDs, and citation checks into a release artifact.

print({'artifact':'RAG audit report','proved':['citation precision w/ version'],'unproved':['live traffic'],'owner':'rag-ops','rollback':'faq-2026-07-01'})

Expected evidence: audit ship record. Store this beside the fixture version so scores remain meaningful after content changes in rag-quality-audit.

State operating limits for the RAG quality audit report in plain language: fixture size, offline vs live dependencies, and what would require a new eval set. Shipping rag-quality-audit is honest scoping, not maximal confidence language.

Fill this table in your notes for the RAG quality audit report:

• Proved on gold set with expected evidence IDs + candidate run output: …
• Unproved beyond the fixture: …
• Metric that blocks release: citation precision, unsupported answer rate, abstention correctness
• Failure still reproducible: scoring fluency instead of citation support, or mixing docs versions in one report
• Security gate: publishing golden questions that contain real customer PII
• Rollback: …

Ship the narrative only when the unproved list is honest. Reviewers trust narrow claims that support turn golden questions, expected evidence IDs, and citation checks into a release artifact more than maximal language that collapses under the first production oddity.

Hand your ship note to a peer and ask them to recreate a proved/unproved ship note with rollback without watching you type. If they cannot, your evidence is still tribal knowledge. Tighten the run command and the metric line until a stranger can validate the RAG quality audit report against gold set with expected evidence IDs + candidate run output.

At the mastery and shipping stage for rag-quality-audit, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about gold set with expected evidence IDs + candidate run output that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: previous docs_version audit score.

For this page specifically, success looks like a proved/unproved ship note with rollback while still centering the user decision to turn golden questions, expected evidence IDs, and citation checks into a release artifact. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the RAG quality audit report, stay on this page instead of advancing.

Glossary: faithfulness · Glossary: recall@k · Cheatsheet: RAG quality · How-to: evaluate RAG quality

Previous