How can evaluation distinguish justified restraint from an incomplete review?

A review agent can fail by doing too little or by intervening without cause. An evaluator that rewards only completed follow-up tasks can encourage unnecessary restrictions, duplicate enquiries or avoidable customer contact. An evaluator that rewards closure alone can encourage superficial assessment.

Use generated review cases with explicit decision boundaries. In a retail account review, a temporary ordering fluctuation may fall within the account's permitted seasonal pattern. A no-change outcome is justified if the agent checks the relevant period and confirms the applicable arrangement. The same outcome is unsupported if the agent closes the review without establishing those facts.

Assess the decision and its evidential basis separately. The evaluator can inspect whether required questions were resolved, whether cited records support the conclusion and whether the resulting action is proportionate to the identified issue. Avoid requiring a particular sequence of tool calls when several valid investigation paths exist.

MirrorFirm could generate paired cases where a small evidential difference changes the appropriate intervention. Comparing behaviour across the pair helps reveal agents that always escalate or always retain the current arrangement, even when their written explanations sound individually convincing.