Evaluation infrastructure
Version criteria, evidence and findings so teams can act on them.
AI data and evaluation practice / Shanghai
AI evaluation should connect dataset lineage, review criteria and model behaviour to the decisions a regulated workflow is allowed to make. In Shanghai, this connects directly to integration across trade, logistics and financial workflows.
What this practice covers
Production AI depends on data workflows and evaluation systems that make quality decisions repeatable, inspectable and useful to engineers.
Organizations operating in China often work at significant digital scale across fast product cycles, complex supply chains and distinct data and platform requirements.
Shanghai's finance, trade, shipping and technology sectors create platforms with significant transaction volume and partner complexity. Clear interfaces and observability are essential for dependable change.
Finance, shipping, trade, software, biopharma and advanced manufacturing create demanding combinations of scale and governance.
AI evaluation should connect dataset lineage, review criteria and model behaviour to the decisions a regulated workflow is allowed to make.
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 isolate a platform or delivery problem, define its interfaces clearly and coordinate implementation with China-based and international stakeholders. For AI Data & Evaluation, the initial scope should stay anchored to integration across trade, logistics and financial workflows.
Opinions, reviews, and focused direction.
ExploreOngoing capacity in your engineering team.
ExploreIncidents, rotations, and production response.
ExploreRoadmaps with clear delivery ownership.
ExplorePlan and deliver a defined technical outcome.
ExploreOngoing engineering care and improvement.
ExploreQuestions answered
A short set of practical questions to clarify the first conversation.
AI evaluation should connect dataset lineage, review criteria and model behaviour to the decisions a regulated workflow is allowed to make. Scope should begin with the systems, owners and evidence connected to integration across trade, logistics and financial workflows.
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 integration across trade, logistics and financial workflows and the technical or organizational boundary that makes it difficult today.