Service · 07
AI Safety & Quality
Test AI before launch and keep watching it after launch.
We help teams set AI rules, test models and assistants, protect sensitive data, monitor performance and keep people involved where judgment is needed.
Problems we solve
What usually brings teams here
- AI features go live without a proper test.
- Nobody notices when answer quality drops.
- Sensitive information is not handled carefully enough.
- There is no record of what the AI did and why.
- Costs and response times are hard to predict.
- Teams cannot show a regulator or customer how the AI is controlled.
What's included
What we do in ai safety & quality
01
AI Rules & Acceptance Criteria
Agree what the AI may do, what it must not do and what good looks like before build starts.
02
Test Sets & Model Evaluation
Build test cases from real examples and score accuracy, safety and difficult cases.
03
Expert Review
Domain experts check answers, label mistakes and set the standard for quality.
04
Sensitive Data Protection
Find, mask or remove personal and confidential information across AI workflows.
05
Live Monitoring & Alerts
Watch quality, response time, cost and failures after launch, with alerts to owners.
06
Audit Trails & Reporting
Keep records of inputs, outputs, changes and approvals so results can be checked later.
What you receive
Clear deliverables
- AI rules and acceptance criteria
- Test set built from real cases
- Evaluation report before launch
- Sensitive-data handling plan
- Live monitoring dashboard and alerts
- Audit log and review process
- Retest plan for each change
How it works
- 1Agree the rulesDefine allowed use, risk cases, review points and success measures.
- 2Build the test setCollect real and difficult examples with agreed correct answers.
- 3Test before launchScore quality, safety and edge cases, then fix what fails.
- 4Launch with monitoringTrack quality, cost, response time and exceptions in production.
- 5Review and retestRetest after every change to instructions, data or model.
Want ai safety & quality scoped for your team?
Send us the problem and the systems involved. We reply within one business day with a starting point, a target and a first step.
Pre-launch evaluation
What should be evaluated before an AI system goes live?
The evaluation dimensions should follow the system's intended job and risk. Depending on that scope, review can cover relevance, factuality, consistency, instruction following, hallucination risk, refusal behaviour, unsafe responses, edge cases and domain-specific correctness, with human review where judgment is needed.
- Define expected behaviour and unacceptable outcomes before testing
- Use representative and difficult cases, not only successful demonstrations
- Categorise failures so fixes can target prompts, data, workflow rules or escalation
- Repeat a stable regression set after material changes
- Monitor agreed production signals where the engagement includes ongoing monitoring
Independent evidence
Why use a separate evaluation dataset?
Training data teaches or tunes a model. An evaluation dataset checks behaviour after training without reusing the examples the system learned from. Keeping the sets separate reduces leakage and makes repeat tests more meaningful. The evaluation set should represent the task, known edge cases and agreed failure categories.
Methodology
How the work is structured
- 01
Define expected behaviour
Agree scope, risks, dimensions, acceptance criteria and escalation points.
- 02
Build evaluation cases
Use representative requests, edge cases and unsafe or out-of-scope scenarios.
- 03
Run and review
Combine repeatable checks with human review for factual, contextual or domain judgments.
- 04
Classify failures
Record whether a failure comes from instructions, data, retrieval, model behaviour or workflow design.
- 05
Retest and monitor
Run stable regression cases after changes and monitor agreed signals after launch where included.
How we measure success
Agree the measures before delivery starts
These are measurement categories, not performance claims. The relevant definitions and acceptance criteria are agreed for each engagement.
- Accepted and rejected cases
- Results against criteria agreed before the evaluation run.
- Failure categories
- Distribution of factual, relevance, instruction, refusal, safety and edge-case failures.
- Exception rate
- Cases needing specialist judgment or escalation.
- Regression consistency
- Whether previously accepted behaviour remains stable after changes.
Outcomes
Why teams engage us
- Fewer surprises after launch
- Clear evidence that the AI works as agreed
- Sensitive data handled with agreed controls
How we position this
Safety here means practical control: agreed rules, real test cases, human review where judgment matters, and monitoring that tells you when quality slips.
Related solutions
Packaged around a business outcome
FAQ
AI Safety & Quality questions, answered
Common questions we hear about ai safety & quality. If yours is missing, ask us.
AI testing means building a test set from real and difficult cases, agreeing what a good answer looks like with your domain experts, then scoring the system before launch and after every change. We track accuracy, safety and edge-case handling as measurable scores rather than opinions. Failing cases are fixed before launch, and the same test set is reused for every future change. This gives you evidence the AI works as agreed, not just a feeling that it does.
Cost depends on how many use cases need test coverage, how much expert review is required, and whether ongoing monitoring is included. We typically scope a fixed-price initial test set and evaluation report before quoting ongoing monitoring as a separate recurring service. Reviewing an existing AI system your team already built is priced similarly to a new build, since the test set work is the same.
Yes, live monitoring tracks answer quality, response time, cost and failures after launch, with alerts sent to the responsible owner when results drift. We retest after every change to instructions, data or the underlying model, plus on a regular schedule in production. This catches quality drops before customers or regulators do. Monitoring dashboards are delivered alongside the initial evaluation report.
We find personal and confidential fields across the AI workflow, then mask, remove or restrict them according to rules agreed with your team. Access to sensitive data is limited to approved people and services, and every access decision is recorded. This is checked as part of the same testing process used for accuracy and safety. Sensitive-data handling is documented in the delivery so you can show it to auditors or customers.
You provide access to the AI system or its interface, real example interactions if available, and your domain experts' time to define what a good answer looks like. If the system is already live, we review it directly rather than needing a rebuild. No changes to the underlying model are required to begin testing. Sensitive data handling rules are agreed before any review of real interactions begins.
A first evaluation report is typically ready in 2 to 4 weeks, covering test set creation, expert-reviewed correct answers and initial scoring. Timelines depend on how many use cases are in scope and how much domain expert time is available for review. Ongoing monitoring then runs continuously once the system is live. Retesting after each change is faster since the test set already exists.
Proof
Where this work paid off
Manufacturing
Cut purchasing cost surprises and document work across plants
This manufacturer had spend and supplier data trapped in plant-level systems, spreadsheets and supplier portals. Purchase teams spent days reconciling costs, tariffs changed without warning, and quality documents were processed by hand. DataplexLabs connected the sources, built a unified purchasing view and put document extraction in place with a human review queue.
Read the case study →Healthcare & Pharma Distribution
Control complex contracts, rebates and claims without losing oversight
Contract, rebate and claim rules were complex and varied by product and customer. Controlled documents needed careful handling, and any AI use needed evidence and audit records. DataplexLabs built a contract and rebate data model, automated document review and set up model testing and approval workflows.
Read the case study →Software & AI Companies
Ship model-ready datasets and safer AI products faster
Engineers were spending most of their time cleaning and labeling data. There was no test set that reflected real customer cases, and quality problems were found by users. DataplexLabs built a repeatable data pipeline, created labeled evaluation sets and introduced regression tests before release.
Read the case study →Next step
Discuss your use case
Bring one pain point, a data source, a workflow, a margin question. We'll come back with a focused assessment and a clear ROI hypothesis.