Which failure modes should a buyer probe before adopting an allocation task pack?
A list of eight failure modes, from forced matches and arithmetic drift to stale balances and unreversed downstream effects, that a pack should be able to detect.
Probe these failure modes on a sample before adopting a task pack, and confirm the pack's graders can detect each one.
- Forcing a match on an ambiguous reference when the policy calls for a query or suspense instead. - Arithmetic drift, where allocated amounts no longer reconcile to the receipt after a split or a rounding step. - Applying cash to a disputed or blocked item that policy says must wait for sign-off. - Ignoring a credit note or adjustment and allocating against a stale balance. - Clearing fees or interest before principal, or the reverse, against the stated ordering rule. - Failing to undo downstream effects, such as a scheduled reminder or hold, after a reversal. - Copying a habit from earlier cases when the policy text has changed in the current one. - Giving a confident explanation that cites a rule which does not apply to the case.
If a task pack cannot expose these failures in a sample, it will not tell you much about a model's real behaviour.
- Audience:
- Model labs
- Content type:
- Checklist
- Buyer question:
- How to evaluate it
Content release: r-a220eb6e099b243b
Related questions
- How do I judge whether generated remittance and allocation records are realistic enough?
- Which failure modes should I test for in a payment matching agent?
- How would an evaluation score an agent on a hospital insurer remittance?
- What reset, logging and grading hooks should an evaluation environment expose?
- How should scoring handle cases where several allocations are defensible?
- How do I check generated data for grounding and disclosure risk?