Evaluation infrastructure
Version criteria, evidence and findings so teams can act on them.
AI data and evaluation practice / Wellington
AI evaluation should connect dataset lineage, review criteria and model behaviour to the decisions a regulated workflow is allowed to make. In Wellington, this connects directly to secure data handling across institutional boundaries.
What this practice covers
Production AI depends on data workflows and evaluation systems that make quality decisions repeatable, inspectable and useful to engineers.
New Zealand organizations often need resilient digital services that serve a geographically distributed market while making efficient use of focused engineering teams.
Wellington's public-sector, finance, research and creative communities depend on systems that communicate decisions clearly. Engineering quality includes accessibility, security, continuity and maintainable ownership.
Government, financial services, research, film and digital media create a distinctive mix of accountability and creative technology.
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
A compact consulting or delivery team can address a defined constraint while transferring decisions and operating knowledge back to New Zealand stakeholders. For AI Data & Evaluation, the initial scope should stay anchored to secure data handling across institutional boundaries.
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 secure data handling across institutional boundaries.
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 secure data handling across institutional boundaries and the technical or organizational boundary that makes it difficult today.
Available in New Zealand