Evaluation infrastructure
Version criteria, evidence and findings so teams can act on them.
AI data and evaluation practice / Vancouver
AI evaluation needs reproducible datasets, criteria and experiment records so promising research can become a system with defensible production behaviour. In Vancouver, this connects directly to data platforms for research, content and operational workloads.
What this practice covers
Production AI depends on data workflows and evaluation systems that make quality decisions repeatable, inspectable and useful to engineers.
Canadian organizations often balance national scale, cross-border dependencies, privacy expectations and teams distributed across several regional technology centres.
Vancouver combines research-led companies, digital content, high-tech services and a major Pacific logistics gateway. Engineering teams benefit from platforms that make distributed collaboration, data movement and production ownership explicit.
Digital media, visual effects, life sciences, software, clean technology and logistics each depend on different combinations of compute, data and collaboration.
AI evaluation needs reproducible datasets, criteria and experiment records so promising research can become a system with defensible production behaviour.
What that gives your team
Prepare and transform text, image, audio and multimodal data for controlled use.
Design labeling, review, calibration and adjudication around quality criteria.
Create rubrics, datasets and regression workflows for application behavior.
Capture comparisons, demonstrations and preference signals in structured form.
Make disagreement, review outcomes and quality thresholds visible.
Version criteria, evidence and findings so teams can act on them.
How it works
The workflow connects quality criteria to the people, data and engineering decisions that use the result.
Translate the quality question into criteria, rubric and decision boundaries.
Create datasets, annotation paths or evaluation runs with traceable versions.
Calibrate reviewers, handle disagreement and inspect quality signals.
Engagement models
Engagements can be shaped around a bounded modernization goal, an embedded capability gap or a longer operating transition across Canadian stakeholders. For AI Data & Evaluation, the initial scope should stay anchored to data platforms for research, content and operational workloads.
Opinions, reviews, and focused direction.
ExploreOngoing capacity in your engineering team.
Incidents, rotations, and production response.
Roadmaps with clear delivery ownership.
Plan and deliver a defined technical outcome.
ExploreOngoing engineering care and improvement.
Questions answered
A short set of practical questions to clarify the first conversation.
AI evaluation needs reproducible datasets, criteria and experiment records so promising research can become a system with defensible production behaviour. Scope should begin with the systems, owners and evidence connected to data platforms for research, content and operational workloads.
The category focuses on the data, feedback and evaluation infrastructure around AI systems; model training is only in scope where it is part of that evidenced workflow.
The existing LLM and Agent Evaluation Systems service supports application-specific criteria, datasets, regression runs and actionable findings.
Calibration, review and adjudication are explicit workflow concerns rather than hidden quality assumptions.
No. The model is drafted for architectural completeness but remains nonpublic and nonroutable.
Next step
Start with data platforms for research, content and operational workloads and the technical or organizational boundary that makes it difficult today.