Index
A reviewer may edit output because they know a customer-specific exception. Turning every edit into a general rule fixes one case while breaking situations that were previously correct.
The design to commission
Separate output corrections, master-data adjustments and policy changes. Every change needs explicit scope: document, customer, category or entire process. Feedback should record reasons without assuming reviewers authorize training or updates across the knowledge base. Compare deterministic rule maintenance with instruction changes and evaluated examples. Not every correction requires a model change. Review consequences for cases that should remain unchanged; tests must not include only the sample triggering the adjustment. Define who approves promotion of exceptions into rules and how inappropriate changes are reversed. Suppliers should show previous versions, proposed changes and comparison results. This prevents assistants accumulating contradictory instructions or personal preferences without control while preserving process-owner responsibility. Establish how disputed feedback enters a review queue instead of immediately competing with another reviewer's instruction in production behavior.
Supplier criteria
- Record correction reasons and scope separately.
- Change global rules only with accountable approval.
- Preserve unaffected cases in regression evaluation.
Acceptance with an exception
In hypothetical acceptance, one customer uses an exceptional product name. The correction should apply to that relationship without renaming the item for other customers or automatically changing master data.
Reference for assessing scope
Prepare your project with Quantum9
Bring Quantum9 human revisions and their reasons. Discovery organizes feedback, exception scope and evaluation before changes are made to the assistant's general behavior.