Evaluation infrastructure
Version criteria, evidence and findings so teams can act on them.
AI data and evaluation practice / Tokyo
AI evaluation should connect dataset lineage, review criteria and model behaviour to the decisions a regulated workflow is allowed to make. In Tokyo, this connects directly to phased modernization around critical enterprise workloads.
What this practice covers
Production AI depends on data workflows and evaluation systems that make quality decisions repeatable, inspectable and useful to engineers.
Organizations in Japan often modernize around highly dependable existing operations, complex partner networks and strong expectations for quality and continuity.
Tokyo's concentration of headquarters, finance, technology and commerce creates deep dependencies between modern products and long-lived systems. Incremental architecture and strong observability make change safer.
Finance, technology, retail, media, transport and healthcare combine large-scale digital demand with strong continuity expectations.
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
Work can proceed through carefully bounded stages that reduce change risk, document decisions and support handover to Japanese product and operations teams. For AI Data & Evaluation, the initial scope should stay anchored to phased modernization around critical enterprise workloads.
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 phased modernization around critical enterprise 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 phased modernization around critical enterprise workloads and the technical or organizational boundary that makes it difficult today.