Approach
How I build these
Evaluation before implementation
If you can't measure whether the system got better or worse after a change, you're guessing. On the largest system I've run, roughly a third of the changes that felt like improvements measurably weren't. We only knew because there was a 500-example, expert-reviewed set to check against. Build the harness first.
Escalation before the happy path
Every worthwhile system here is a human–machine system. The ones that fail are the ones where the machine had no way to say "I don’t know," so it answered anyway, fluently and wrongly. Design what happens when the system is uncertain before you design what happens when it’s right.
Guardrails that block, not warn
A warning nobody reads is not a control. Every draft is scored against named guardrails with a hard threshold, and anything below it does not go out. Confident wrongness is more expensive than silence.
Monitoring, because these systems degrade quietly
Models get deprecated. Input distributions drift as the business changes. Costs creep. Accuracy falls a percentage point a month and nobody notices until a customer complains. Tracing isn't a nice-to-have; it's the difference between operating a system and hoping.
If you'd rather talk about your own process than read about mine — fifteen minutes →