Production-first AI evaluation

Your AI change passed eval and shipped last week.Are your customers actually getting better answers - or did you just hope?

Most evaluation tools score one dimension on synthetic prompts. The failures your customers actually see - wrong numbers, drifting context, hallucinated citations - slip through because they don't show up until the response is in the wild.

variA/Bly is the deterministic evaluation layer for production AI. 40+ scored dimensions, claim-level grounding, hallucination detection - same input, same score, every run. Experimentation built on top, so when you ship a change, you know whether it actually improved the system.

Why evaluation on variA/Bly is auditable
Every response scored with multi-dimensional 40+ metrics, not just fluency
Claims verified against retrieved context - hallucinations caught
Statistical confidence tells you when you have a real winner
Test on real production traffic, not synthetic benchmarks

1,000 free credits.

AI Evaluation Results

Catch hallucinations, verify grounding, defend every claim with an auditable trail - powered by deterministic scoring across 40+ dimensions.

Faithfulness
94%
Hallucination Rate
3.2%
Claim Coverage
91%
Context Retention
88%
chunks: 847claims verified: 2,341depth: 4 turns
Run Ledger · EXP-4821winner locked
Confidence
94.2%
Drift
-12%
Safety
98%
control72%
winner94%
$ variably deploy --variant=winner

What teams measure with variA/Bly

94%
faithfulness
3.2%
hallucination rate
cleaner FPR vs LLM-as-judge
50%+
lower per-eval cost
<1 ms
SDK latency added
40+
dimensions across 6 categories
95%+
statistical confidence
2x
faster iteration cycles
the problem

Your eval said 91%. The hallucination still reached the customer.

Most teams score AI responses with shallow metrics - fluency, relevance, a thumbs up from an LLM judge. The score lands at 91%. The ungrounded answer still ships.

Why? Because standard eval never sees the retrieved chunks from your RAG pipeline. It never checks whether claims exist in source documents. It never tracks whether turn 5 contradicts turn 2 across multi-turn interactions.

The result? Two variants both score 91%. You ship one and hope. That's not evaluation - that's a coin flip dressed up as a metric.

Shallow evaluation makes every deployment a gamble.

What typical eval sees
Prompt
Response
Score: 92%passed
What they miss
Retrieved chunks
Source documents
Conversation history
Claim grounding
Cross-turn consistency
the solution

The evaluation layer your AI deployments have been missing.

Observability tells you what happened. variA/Bly tells you whether the answer was actually grounded - with deterministic scoring against retrieved context, claim-level verification, and full interaction history.

Grounding Verification

Every factual claim in your RAG output traced back to retrieved chunks. Ungrounded claims flagged with the exact sentence that hallucinated.

Multi-Turn Coherence

Track consistency across multi-turn interactions. Detect contradictions, context loss, and coreference failures automatically.

Deterministic Audit Trail

Every score reproduces byte-for-byte on the same input. Per-claim grounding traces, NLI entailment scores, numeric verification - the artifact your compliance reviewer needs.

the number nobody else publishes

6× cleaner on the failure mode that produces compliance breaches.

We benchmarked variA/Bly head-to-head against RAGAS on the public RGB dataset. Same 592 question + answer + reference tuples, both scorers, scripts open-sourced. Here's the failure rate that matters.

variA/Bly
6.1%FPR on distractors

When variA/Bly says “grounded”, it's right 9 out of 10 times. Built for regulated, customer-facing AI.

RAGAS (LLM-as-judge)
38.2%FPR on distractors

The LLM judge defaults to “probably verifiable” on keyword overlap — even when the passage doesn't actually support the claim.

Read the full benchmark report

Methodology · 12-phase journey · reproduction scripts · downloadable PDFs

Everything you need to ship better AI

Deep evaluation. Auditable decisions. Confident deployments.

01
Context-Aware RAG Evaluation
Claim-level verification against retrieved chunks, faithfulness scoring, context utilization.
02
Multi-Turn Interaction Analysis
Cross-turn consistency, context retention across interactions, progressive depth.
03
Experimentation Layer
A/B testing on real traffic, variant management, statistical confidence.
04
Drift & Regression Detection
Quality drift monitoring, regression alerts, historical comparison.
05
AI ROI Measurement
Cost vs quality tradeoff, latency impact, token efficiency.
Capability

Claim-Level Verification

Trace every factual claim back to retrieved source documents.

Capability

Faithfulness Scoring

Measure how accurately responses reflect the provided context.

Capability

Multi-Turn Consistency

Detect contradictions and context loss across conversation turns.

Capability

A/B Testing

Run controlled experiments with configurable traffic splits.

Capability

Quality Drift Monitoring

Track evaluation scores over time and detect degradation.

Capability

Cost vs Quality vs Time

Compare quality improvements against cost, latency, and iteration time impact.

decision layer

How teams decide what to ship

Statistical confidence meets behavioral understanding.

Statistical Significance

Bayesian analysis and confidence intervals tell you when a change is real and reproducible - not noise dressed up as a metric.

Behavioral Insight

Understand not just whether a change is real, but why. See which dimensions improved and which regressed.

Cost-Quality-Time Tradeoff

Compare quality improvements against cost, latency, and iteration time. Ship the change that holds up across your priorities.

Regression Detection

Automatic alerts when a change degrades on safety, consistency, or any critical dimension - even if the overall score improves.

workflow

From observation to deployment

Five steps to context-aware AI improvement.

01

Observe

Log production traffic with full context — retrieved chunks, conversation history, system instructions.

02

Evaluate

Multi-dimensional scoring with 40+ metrics and grounding verification. Every claim checked against source documents.

03

Experiment

A/B test prompt, model, and retrieval changes on real production traffic with controlled splits.

04

Decide

Statistical significance meets behavioral insight. Know the winner with confidence.

05

Ship

Deploy the winner and monitor for drift. Get alerted if quality degrades.

Works with any LLM

Provider-agnostic SDK. Call your model however you want; score the response with one line. Swap models without changing your evaluation pipeline.

OpenAI
GPT-4o, GPT-4, o1
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Opus
Google
Gemini 1.5 Pro, Flash
Meta
Llama 3, Llama 4
Mistral
Mistral Large, Mixtral
Cohere
Command R+, Embed
xAI
Grok
AWS Bedrock
Multi-model gateway
Azure OpenAI
Hosted
Self-hosted
Bring your own model

...and any other provider with an HTTP API. The SDK doesn't care which model produced the response.

Your data stays yours

We never use your data for model training or any other purpose beyond serving you.

No training on your data

Your prompts, evaluations, and scoring results are never used to train AI models. Ever.

Secure by default

All traffic encrypted over HTTPS. Your data is stored securely and never shared with third parties.

Full data isolation

Each organization gets fully isolated data storage with org-level access controls.

Ready to ship AI you can defend?

Deterministic evaluation gives you the audit trail behind every response.

1,000 free credits.