Evals in the business environment
Did the work reach the right outcome?
An invoice must match the approved records. A testing agent must find real defects and provide reproducible evidence. Evaluate the work against your agreed requirements, including outputs, permissions and human decisions, with failures available for review.
Selected workflow: Employee transfers, letters, leave and HR escalation
Discuss a workflow evaluationBusiness correctness needs more than a completed task.
Illustrative evaluation design, not measured results
- Document finding
- Missing supplier evidence is identified
- Authority
- The authorized person approves the exception
- State change
- Supplier status matches the decision
- Dependency
- Catalog selection respects that status
- Handoff
- The next participant receives usable context
Worked example · illustrative
The checks for one supplier onboarding run
Run SUP-2041 with a partial name match to a restricted entity. Independent checks and a reviewer assess the run, not the agent’s own account of it.
Check results
| Check | Method | Result |
|---|---|---|
| No restricted-entity match cleared by the agent | Executable check on the screening record | Pass |
| Approval made by the authorized person | Approval record against the approval rule | Pass |
| Supplier status matches the decision | Vendor master state | Pass |
| Catalogue shows the 14 products as not eligible | Catalogue state | Pass |
| No duplicate supplier record created | Vendor master state | Pass |
| Screening package complete | Reviewer against the source documents | Fail: country of origin missing for one item |
Reviewer note
- Finding
- The package left out the country of origin for item 9 of 14, and the agent did not flag the gap.
- Follow-up
- Logged for the owner. Rerun under the same starting conditions after the fix.
- About the checks
- The checks were tested on known correct and incorrect examples before this run.
Illustrative design with invented data. Simulated results, not a recorded or customer result.
Validate the environment. Independently check the execution.
Domain experts review whether the environment faithfully represents the agreed work, using reference behavior where available. Separately, checks and qualified reviewers assess execution. The agent’s own account or a realistic-looking simulation cannot establish correctness.
01
Define correctness and its limits
Agree required outputs, permitted actions, valid state changes and escalation criteria before execution. Identify legitimate alternative outcomes and which judgments require a qualified reviewer.
02
Qualify the checks themselves
Use executable checks for records, calculations and application state where supported. Review expected answers against business policy and test checks on known correct and incorrect examples. Record ambiguity, omissions and reviewer disagreement.
03
Retain evidence and rerun affected cases
Record environment, case, agent, model and tool versions with observed execution. Compare changes under agreed starting conditions. Scope reset, repeat runs and regression checks explicitly, retaining failures as well as successes.
Illustrative connected use cases, not a recorded result
A completed onboarding task can still be wrong
An agent may populate every supplier field while approving a record without authority. An output check alone could pass it. The evaluation also needs recorded actions, the applicable approval rule and the resulting supplier state, including whether catalog selection incorrectly accepts that supplier.
Evidence to review
Proposed engagement outputs
- Acceptance criteria, check methods and named reviewers
- Environment fidelity review with known limitations
- Versioned execution evidence, artifacts and check results
- Failure examples and review summary for the owner’s next decision
Questions to scope together
- What counts as correct, and which alternatives are legitimate?
- How will checks be tested independently of the agent?
- Which reference behavior supports the environment’s business fidelity?
- What additional evidence is needed before an operating decision?
Engagement scope
Your domain owner agrees criteria and provides qualified reviewers. Nuvepro helps scope evaluation cases, independent checks and evidence capture. Your accountable owner decides what the results support; production acceptance requires review of the actual operating setting.
Configured per engagement
Evaluations cover specified cases, versions and conditions. Verifiers, run capture and runtime compatibility are confirmed or built for the agreed scope. Human Skill Validation Assessments alone do not establish agent correctness or shared-workflow acceptance.
Before you start
Do you certify agents as enterprise-ready?
No. The evidence describes performance within specified conditions and known limits. It informs an accountable owner’s decision and does not certify unrestricted production use, regulatory compliance or future reliability.
Can an LLM judge the result?
A model-based judgment may contribute where its validity has been assessed. Use executable checks and qualified human review wherever the claim requires them. The evaluator needs scrutiny as well as the agent being evaluated.
Does a passing evaluation prove enterprise impact?
It establishes what the checked execution supports within the agreed environment. Operational impact requires comparable baselines and evidence from actual work. Broader deployment and ongoing assurance need their own acceptance criteria.
Connect the next part of the workflow
Business Environments
What does the work depend on?
Bring the agreed systems, data, rules, roles and shared state together around connected use cases.
Simulations
What happens under different conditions?
Run simulations within the business environment, including exceptions, dependencies and human decisions.
Which piece of enterprise work do you want to improve?
Bring the workflow and the change you want to make. Agree the enterprise conditions, agent contribution and evidence your business and technical owners need before the next step.
Discuss a workflow evaluation