evals

A classic metrics question with a domain twist. The answer isn't 'recall'; it's a cost-of-errors argument plus a threshold strategy, and interviewers grade the reasoning, not the metric you pick.

The data-volume thresholds, the break-even math, and the regression-prevention checklist that turn 'just fine-tune it' into a defensible engineering decision. Includes the crossover rule interviewers listen for.

Prompts are production code that nobody treats like code, until an innocent one-line tweak tanks accuracy. The version-eval-canary-rollback pipeline that AI-native interviewers expect by default.

Model migrations break things that benchmarks never show, format quirks, refusal shifts, tool-calling drift. The eval-replay and shadow-traffic playbook for migrating without surprises.

Evals are the #1 probing area in AI-lab FDE loops. The full suite design, golden sets, component metrics, safety red-teaming, CI gates, and the launch-blocking thresholds, in interview-ready form.

Position bias, verbosity bias, self-preference, and the agreement-rate workflow that turns a sloppy judge into eval infrastructure you can defend. AI labs probe this hard; here's the calibrated answer.

Reported as the question OpenAI FDE interviewers push hardest on, and the one where 'we look at the outputs' ends loops. The three-legged answer that passes: automated metrics, calibrated human evaluation, and feedback loops wired to a business number.

Provider model upgrades ship faster than your release cycle and quietly shift behavior. The design that turns 'we hope it's fine' into a blocking gate: a frozen golden set, pairwise diffing, segmented scoring, and a shadow-traffic canary.

This is the live practical several labs run, and it is scored on protocol more than on the prompt you end with. Read all thirty before editing, cluster them, hold some out, change one thing at a time, and report with intervals, because 24 of 30 fixed is somewhere between 63% and 91%.

Word error rate is the number every vendor quotes and the one that predicts the least. The offline suite is built from confirmed real calls with noise and codecs applied, scored on entity accuracy, tail latency and false interruptions. Production adds what a recording cannot simulate: real callers and the reopen rate.

'Evals first' is the #1 hiring signal in FDE design rounds. This is the foundational version: what a 50-case golden set looks like, which metrics split retrieval from generation, and the launch gate that convinces interviewers.

The modal FDE design question of the last two years. There's a scoring trap in the first 60 seconds, and most candidates jump to fixes and fail. Here's the diagnostic tree that wins it.

Text-to-SQL's nightmare isn't syntax errors, it's the query that runs, returns a confident number, and is silently wrong. The defense is a semantic layer plus transparency UX. Here's the full design.

The staff-level version of 'evals first.' Four layers, each with a job, a cost, and a blind spot, plus judge calibration numbers and the data flywheel that ties production failures back into CI.

Reciting the four definitions is table stakes; the differentiator is knowing which two need ground truth, what each dimension tells you to fix, and where the judge-model scores quietly lie. The 2x2 that turns RAGAS into a debugging tool.

The classic 'it regressed and the prompt is untouched' triage. The answer that scores walks a decisional tree from retrieval to generation and names the silent culprit most candidates miss: the embedding stack changed under you.

Golden sets catch what you anticipated. The harder problem is the live traffic you never labeled. The answer that scores layers cheap proxy signals against a small anchored golden set and knows what each can and cannot tell you.

A nightly suite of fifty simulated conversations per intent catches a collapsed tool with certainty and a five-point drift almost never. Knowing which is which, and sizing each layer for what it can actually see, is the whole design. The grader checks outcomes, not transcripts, or the agent learns to sound resolved.

Three correct queries scored 0 of 3 on exact match and 3 of 3 on execution. The golden set is question, reference SQL and result set, stratified by the ways queries go wrong, with abstention as its own column. A hundred cases gives plus or minus eight points; four hundred gives four.

The 2026 successor to 'explain precision and recall', interviewers now test whether your classical ML evaluation discipline survives contact with GenAI. The decomposition, the RAGAS dimensions, and the judge-calibration step everyone skips.

The question where data engineering meets the AI-native FDE job. Conversations, turns, LLM calls and tool calls each have their own grain, model them wrong and neither the cost dashboard nor the eval set can be built.

Standard observability tells you the request returned 200 in 800ms. It cannot tell you the answer was wrong. The strong answer names the new failure plane LLMs introduce, and takes a real position on the prompts-and-PII question.

Prompts are production code with a worse failure mode: the regression returns 200 OK. The answer interviewers reward treats a one-word prompt edit with the same machinery as a schema migration, with one LLM-specific twist at every stage.

Reported loop detail: roughly 5 hours to build a RAG system, agent, or eval harness on OpenAI's APIs, a recorded video walkthrough, then a 60-minute defense. The hour-by-hour allocation, why the eval section is the differentiator, and what the video is actually screening for.

A crashed agent is easy. The hard one returns a confident answer after a tool quietly returned nothing and the model made up the rest. The strong answer instruments the steps that fail without throwing, ties traces to an outcome signal, and refuses to call a 200 a success.

Two hard numbers in the contract: 95% accuracy and $0.50 per resolution. The job is an eval and rollout system that proves both hold on real traffic before you scale, with rollback triggers wired to the same numbers.