Scope
Agree the historical cohort, baseline, approved inputs, outcome definitions, review capacity, metrics, guardrails and stop conditions.
Controlled Evaluation
One workflow. One baseline. One decision to make.
Compare one proposed AI-assisted Credit or Fraud risk change with the current baseline under agreed institutional constraints before deciding whether it should progress.
Request a Controlled EvaluationFirst evaluation inputs
Start with the decision question — not a broad data request.
The first conversation can be scoped without customer records or confidential institutional material.
01WorkflowWhat process is being changed?
02BaselineWhat happens today?
03Proposed ChangeWhat model, signal, threshold or context is changing?
04DecisionWhat institutional decision requires evidence?
Evaluation sequence
Scope → Replay → Compare → Decide.
The comparison basis is agreed before outcome inspection. No stage authorises the next one automatically.
Replay
Run the institution baseline and proposed change on the same agreed historical evidence.
Compare
Measure case-prioritisation impact, control effectiveness and evidence quality under the same operating constraints.
Decide
Continue, Refine or Stop. Non-customer-impacting shadow evaluation is a later, separately approved stage where appropriate.
Responsibilities
AEGI evaluates. The institution retains authority.
Controlled Evaluation keeps the evaluation role separate from policy, customer-impacting action and production-deployment authority.
Defines and approves
- workflow and historical cohort;
- approved fields and risk signals;
- baseline policy and review capacity;
- outcome definitions and label governance;
- privacy, security, escalation and stop constraints.
Evaluates and records
- readiness and mapping;
- historical replay and comparison;
- integrated review context where relevant;
- control and failure-path behaviour;
- measured findings, evidence and limitations.
Institution receives
- comparative findings;
- control-effectiveness findings;
- evidence and limitation record;
- Continue / Refine / Stop decision package;
- full decision rights over any later stage.
Repeatable delivery
A standard evaluation core. Clear integration boundaries.
AEGI classifies each opportunity before commitment so a buyer can distinguish reusable evaluation capability from institution-specific mapping or new engineering. One bounded question and an approved baseline remain the entry point.
Approved inputs fit an existing profile and evidence contract; no material semantic or deployment change is required.
A separately estimated source or schema adapter is needed while the evaluation semantics remain unchanged.
A new profile, policy meaning, live provider or deployment boundary requires its own scoping and acceptance.
NO-GO / INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Every opportunity has a clear qualification outcome: Standard, Adapter, Custom or No-Go. AEGI proceeds when lawful evidence access, a reproducible comparator and institutional decision ownership can be established.
Measured outputs
Three dimensions for the next decision.
Exact measures depend on the workflow and available outcome evidence. Counts, rates, uncertainty and operational guardrails remain distinct.
What changed in the reviewed population?
Cases meeting the agreed outcome definition added to or removed from review, together with overlap and turnover at the same review capacity.
Did the agreed controls hold?
Policy, authority, failure, escalation and customer-impact boundaries remain evaluated separately from model or ranking effects.
Can the result support review?
Reproducibility, completeness, traceability, version and configuration context remain reviewable for the evaluated workflow.
Public supporting evidence
BAF-003 shows a measurable fixed-capacity prioritisation effect.
In the public synthetic benchmark, the context-enriched treatment placed 544 versus 494 fraud-labelled applications into the same 2,417 Top-1% review slots.
See the EvidenceCONTROL494
→
CONTEXT-ENRICHED544
+50
Same 2,417 review slots · public synthetic benchmark · not production performance evidence
Decision output
Continue. Refine. Stop.
A Controlled Evaluation succeeds when it produces enough reviewable evidence for the institution to make the next decision.
Progress to the next approved stage.
Only when the measured result and guardrails justify doing so.
Change the scope or assumptions.
Material changes receive a new evaluation basis before another run.
Close the evaluation.
When value, evidence quality, control or readiness is not sufficient.
WHAT YOU RECEIVE
Comparative findingsControl findingsEvidence & limitationsContinue / Refine / Stop package
CONTROLLED EVALUATION
Start with the change you are unsure whether to advance.
Define the workflow, current baseline, proposed change and decision question before any institution-controlled data is considered.