Verified domain professionals judge your model's outputs against the criteria that matter in their field. Structured comparison, not anonymous star ratings.
On a 30-minute call we scope what good looks like in your domain, then score 20 of your model's outputs with verified experts and send back the results. No cost, no commitment.
Source: "Take one tablet twice daily with food. Do not exceed 4 tablets in 24 hours."
Tome un comprimido dos veces al día con comida. No exceda 4 comprimidos en 24 horas.
Tome un comprimido dos veces al día. Máximo 4 comprimidos por día.
B reads naturally, so a linguist would pass it. Losing the food instruction changes absorption, and "per day" invites a second dose before midnight. Neither is a language error.
Workforce size does not predict evaluation quality. Domain expertise, verified identity and representative coverage do. A rater who cannot judge the field will pass outputs that a professional would reject on sight, and the scores will look clean the whole way through.
Four domains where fluent, plausible output is routinely wrong in ways only a practitioner sees.
Reviewed by a verified design and build professional
Corridor width reduced to 900mm to accommodate the additional storage bay. All room dimensions preserved.
Egress width is under minimum. It reads fine unless you have actually built to this code.
Reviewed by verified product designers
Variant A and variant B of a checkout summary screen, same content, different visual hierarchy.
B's hierarchy survives on a small screen. A collapses into one grey block the moment it is on a phone.
Reviewed by a verified finance professional
Revenue grew 34% year on year, driven by strong subscription performance in the fourth quarter.
It is treating deferred revenue as income. The numbers add up and the conclusion is wrong.
Reviewed by a verified native professional
A customer-facing onboarding message, translated from English into the target market language.
Technically fine, and far too formal. Nobody speaks to a customer this way here.
Illustrative examples of the failure modes we test for.
Model quality is not evenly distributed across languages, and neither is the supply of people qualified to judge it. Our depth is in the markets the large vendors cover last.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Verified professionals evaluating in Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu and English, in the domains they actually work in.
Recruited to brief where the panel does not already reach, using the same verification process rather than a different standard for harder markets.
Spanish and Portuguese evaluation with native professionals who hold the domain expertise your content needs, not generalist linguists.
Established coverage across our four domains, useful as the baseline you compare emerging-market performance against.
Language fluency and domain expertise are recruited together. One without the other is why evaluation misses things.
Structured comparison, not vague ratings. The design choices below are what make the results hold up when two models are close.
Experts agree far more on whether A beats B than on what a 4 out of 5 means, so inter-rater reliability is much higher without heavy rubric training.
Factually correct? Format followed? Safe? Binary checks give you an absolute quality bar for regression testing, which pairwise alone cannot.
Left and right order flips for every rater. Position bias is large, and left unhandled it manufactures a winner that does not exist.
Raters can mark a tie or flag both outputs as unusable. Forcing a pick between two bad answers invents signal you will later act on.
What an evaluator sees
Admin fees on withdrawals are standard and commonly applied across providers...
Totally normal! Most e-wallets charge a fee for that, it's nothing to worry about...
Model names never reach the evaluator. A and B are flipped per rater and the flip is recorded, so position bias cannot manufacture a winner.
Every criterion check is graded by severity, so a style complaint never outranks a clinical or compliance error. You see what blocks a release, and what is worth knowing but not worth holding it back for.
In the example above, dropping "with food" is critical. It would pass any review that only counted language errors.
We define what good looks like in your domain, with you.
Verified professionals matched to the domain and language.
Pairwise comparison plus per-criterion checks.
Win rates, criterion pass rates, and the reasons behind them.
The same harness, so you can see movement between versions.
Not a slide deck of impressions. A dataset you can act on and re-run.
Which output won, by how much, and whether the margin is wide enough to act on.
How often each output cleared each check, split by critical, major and minor severity.
The reason behind every judgment, in the evaluator's own words. This is where the fixes come from.
The rubric, criteria and evaluator profile, documented, so the next release is measured the same way.
Evaluation only works when the criteria are right, so we scope it with you on a call rather than guessing. Thirty minutes to agree what good looks like in your domain, then we put 20 of your outputs in front of verified experts and send back scored results with rationales.
Free, and yours to keep whether or not you continue. Full engagements are scoped per study. Most start in the low four figures and run one to three weeks, depending on domain, language and how many evaluators the comparison needs.
You are shipping AI features into a domain your team does not practise in, and you need judgment from people who do.
You need an evaluation function before you can afford to build one, and you need it to survive customer scrutiny.
Your linguists catch language errors. They are not licensed to catch the clinical, legal or technical ones sitting underneath fluent copy.
Verified expert evaluation and fieldwork for your client engagements, with recruitment and quality controls handled.
A 30-minute call to scope the criteria, then 20 of your outputs scored by verified experts in your domain. No cost, and the rubric is yours to keep.