Which environment hooks make customer change evaluations reproducible?
Reset, snapshot and scoring hooks can make repeated evaluations comparable while keeping expected outcomes separate from the state available to the model.
A simulated environment can expose reset with a scenario_id and seed, returning an initial_state_hash and episode_id. The reset specification should cover records, queued work, simulated time and any pending external events. Restoring only the main customer table can leave hidden differences between runs.
The model-facing interface can provide read and action tools, while a separate evaluator reads protected snapshots. Evaluation hooks can check final state, terminal status and evidence supporting the model's completion claim. Expected answers and scoring rules should remain outside model-visible tool responses when the evaluation requires them to be hidden.
An export can include JSONL action traces keyed by episode_id, plus a machine-readable result containing criterion_id, outcome and evidence_reference. The lab can then inspect why a run failed rather than relying on a single aggregate score.
MirrorFirm could scope deterministic replay where the environment supports it, with explicit treatment of nondeterministic components. Reproducibility should be checked by resetting and replaying a known action sequence. This verifies that differences in later model runs arise from behaviour or declared variation, rather than residual state from an earlier episode.
Request reproducible starting states and independent outcome checks so scores reflect behaviour under known conditions.
- Audience:
- Model labs
- Content type:
- Integration
- Buyer question:
- How to evaluate it
Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b
Related questions
- How can a scenario test whether an agent handles another worker's concurrent change?
- How can buyers check whether an agent understands changes rather than memorising wording?
- What should buyers inspect before trusting a generated change evaluation set?
- Which evaluation hooks expose retry and duplicate-processing failures?
- How should evaluation distinguish complete handling from a correct-looking final record?
- How can buyers evaluate correctness without requiring one exact action sequence?