How should buyers evaluate handovers where the correct action is to seek clarification?

Some handovers should stop for clarification. Others contain enough evidence to proceed despite minor omissions. A useful evaluation separates these cases so a model cannot score well simply by accepting everything or escalating everything.

In an insurance administration pack, a transfer may omit the document that establishes which team handles a disputed payment. The expected response could be a targeted request for that document. Another case may omit an optional contact note while still satisfying every acceptance condition. Escalating both cases would show poor judgement.

A reseller can request evaluation cases labelled with the missing information, its decision relevance and the permitted next actions. Scoring can examine whether the model identifies the decisive gap, asks the right role for clarification and avoids requesting unrelated material.

Include answerable and unanswerable cases within the same operating rules. Inspect explanations for invented evidence as well as the chosen action. Downstream reporting should distinguish appropriate clarification, avoidable escalation and unsupported acceptance. A single aggregate success measure can conceal a model that avoids mistakes by sending nearly every handover back to a human.