Platform capability · Shared standards for enterprise AI development
Give expert judgment a form teams can apply.
Rubrics turn expert judgment into benchmark criteria teams can apply across AI development. Policies organize them into shared standards across teams in enterprises, with the scope and precedence needed to interpret each judgment.
Swipe within the demo to explore the workspace.
Criteria and context
Teams can agree on a broad principle and still disagree on a particular response. Rubrics make the requirement assessable. Policies organize the scope and decision hierarchy around it, so enterprise alignment can preserve meaningful exceptions while establishing common expectations.
Benchmark rubrics
A rubric turns expert judgment into a criterion for a response or recorded trajectory. Its wording preserves the relevant conditions, exceptions, and degree of obligation. This gives evaluation a specific requirement to assess and gives developers a clearer account of what must improve.
Across development
Rubrics and policies give expert knowledge a form that teams can apply across AI development. Their contribution extends from deciding which cases to construct to interpreting whether a candidate has improved.
A rubric’s conditions identify situations where the benchmark must examine a requirement. Its exceptions can motivate controlled comparisons, difficult combinations, and further coverage work.
Trialground applies the relevant rubrics to candidate responses and trajectories. Inspect the criteria behind failures so an aggregate score remains connected to your experts’ expectations.
Rubrics clarify which distinction a harness change should address or a Weave training example should teach. Your team can evaluate a proposed improvement against the same requirement that motivated it.
Using shared standards
A changed judgment can expose an omitted condition, an exception, or an unclear criterion. Agents prepare further elicitation around that uncertainty. Across teams, the resulting discussion can also clarify responsibility and improve human-to-human alignment.
Established policies, rubrics, and expert findings can inform the work. The task is to make their requirements assessable and their applicability clear, then use further elicitation where documents leave the actual decision unresolved.
If a rubric or scoring rule changes, the benchmark is asking a different question. Retaining the evaluation basis lets teams distinguish that change from an improvement in the candidate and decide which earlier results need reassessment.
Why the judgment, its interpretation, and the work it informs need to stay connected.
Connected products and capabilities
Start from the work you have
We can examine which criteria should be shared, where context changes the judgment, and how to make the distinction usable in your benchmarks.