Evaluate with evidence

Use these measures: Build task buckets by difficulty. Compare exact-match or rubric score, pass@1, tool-use correctness, latency, output tokens, total cost, timeout rate, and calibration. Evaluate the router as well as each model.

An evaluation set should represent the actual decision, including easy cases, common cases, rare costly cases, and adversarial or malformed inputs. Freeze a test set before tuning. If examples repeatedly influence prompt, threshold, or architecture choices, move them into a development set and obtain a fresh test set. Report sample count and uncertainty; a 95% score on 20 examples means only one observed miss and says little about rare failures.

Pair offline quality with online operations. A component can score well offline and fail under concurrency, stale data, changed users, or dependency outages. Slice results by relevant dimensions rather than trusting one average. Always compare with a simple baseline: deterministic rules, keyword search, a smaller model, or the current human workflow.

A scheduling request has six people, three rooms, and five constraints. A reasoning model proposes a schedule, but deterministic code verifies every constraint. A simple “extract the invoice date” request routes to the fast model.

The worked number is utility = quality gain − latency penalty − cost penalty; a 2% gain is not worthwhile if p95 latency triples on a low-risk task. State the unit and denominator whenever you report it. A percentage without a denominator can conceal a tiny sample; a latency without a percentile can conceal slow users; a similarity score without a labeled task can conceal irrelevant neighbors. Compare the observed value with a threshold chosen before seeing the final test result.

Now test the tempting shortcut. Suppose the team optimizes only the most visible metric. The result may look better while the system becomes less trustworthy. The reason is concrete: More reasoning can raise accuracy on hard tasks but increases latency and cost, and returns diminish. A fast model plus deterministic tool may beat a reasoning model on arithmetic or lookup. Excess deliberation can overcomplicate easy tasks and still produce a confident wrong answer. This is why the decision record must include both the intended gain and the tolerated regression. If the tolerated regression is unknown, the change is not ready for a consequential workflow.

• Prefer a measured baseline over a persuasive demo.
• Keep versions, inputs, and thresholds reproducible.
• Separate syntactic success from semantic correctness and authorization.
• Escalate or abstain when evidence falls outside the contract.
• Re-evaluate when data, traffic, models, providers, or user goals change.

These rules turn the topic into an engineering decision rather than a slogan. They also make disagreement productive: another person can challenge the assumptions, rerun the evaluation, and reach a documented conclusion.

For every percentage, report numerator, denominator, and slice. For every latency, report workload and percentile. For every human rating, define the rubric and check agreement on a shared subset. Compare paired outputs on the same examples when possible; this reduces noise from case difficulty. Investigate regressions, not only the aggregate win. Finally, reserve a fresh set for confirmation after tuning. If the candidate misses a hard safety, authorization, or correctness threshold, a higher average score elsewhere does not compensate—the candidate fails the gate.