Upshot delivery lead
Coordinates the agreed build, evaluation, employee onboarding and handover. The proposal identifies delivery and support responsibilities.
Enterprise evaluation
Security belongs
in the working plan.
Before company information is connected, your business and technical teams should understand where it goes, who can access it and how the result will be checked. We make those decisions part of the scope.
This is our approach to scoping and evaluation. The controls, providers, hosting arrangements and support terms for your system are agreed per engagement.
A typical information flow
How your data flows.
- 01
Permitted sources
Agree the records, access boundaries and authoritative versions.
- 02
Retrieval & rules
Apply configured permissions, matching rules and freshness checks.
- 03
A reviewable answer
Return relevant context with sources and visible gaps.
- 04
An accountable decision
Employees check the result and follow the agreed approval process.
We assess an existing enterprise platform, a configured integration or a custom workflow against your requirements. Hosting location, private networking and data-residency needs are evaluated before a design is proposed.
From a requirement to something you can inspect
Controls & evaluation.
Scope the control, test the relevant behavior and record what still needs attention.
Identity & source permissions
Map user identity, source access and client boundaries. Agree how permission changes and departures propagate to the system.
Evidence to reviewRole-based access tests, including restricted records, changed permissions and denied-access cases.
Providers & data handling
Record what content reaches each provider, where it is processed and stored, and which contractual terms apply. Review model-training use, subprocessors and encryption requirements for the selected services.
Evidence to reviewAn agreed data-flow diagram, provider list and handling requirements before connecting project data.
Retention, deletion & logs
Define retention separately for source copies, indexes, prompts, outputs, logs and backups. Identify who can inspect or export audit records and how deletion requests are handled.
Evidence to reviewDocumented retention settings, deletion checks and logging access appropriate to the chosen architecture.
Source freshness & conflicts
Choose authoritative records, refresh expectations and rules for duplicates or conflicting versions. Agree how the experience flags stale information, missing sources and failed connections.
Evidence to reviewChecks for updates, deletions, conflicting records and connector failures, with a named maintenance owner.
Answer quality & consistency
Build an evaluation set from representative tasks, difficult questions and known gaps. Check source support, completeness, uncertainty and changes in answers across repeated runs.
Evidence to reviewAn acceptance record showing results, exceptions, corrections and the business reviewer’s decision.
Latency & operating cost
Agree response-time targets for the workflow and test typical and slower requests under representative load. Separate machine response time from employee checking and correction time.
Evidence to reviewMeasured response-time distribution, usage assumptions, operating cost estimate and failure behavior.
Human review & approved actions
Define what employees may rely on, when they must inspect sources and which outputs need approval. Any write-back, external message or consequential action requires a separately agreed control path.
Evidence to reviewReview instructions, escalation cases and approval tests matched to the actual workflow.
Handover & support ownership
Identify owners for access, content quality, provider changes, incidents and employee help. Agree support scope, escalation channels and response commitments in the engagement.
Evidence to reviewAn operating runbook, owner list, handover session and agreed support terms before the team takes over.
Consistency by design
Use explicit rules.
Evaluate generated answers.
Use deterministic rules for checks that need a fixed result: access decisions, required fields, approved calculations, record matching where the criteria are known, and routing conditions.
Model-generated language can vary. We evaluate factual support, repeated-run consistency and the handling of uncertainty, and define when a person must review the output. Source content is treated as data; evaluation should include attempts to steer the system through instructions embedded in documents.
Clear ownership through rollout
Delivery responsibilities.
Your system & data owners
Authorize access, confirm source ownership and handling requirements, and review the proposed integration and operating controls.
Your business reviewers
Provide representative tasks, define an acceptable result, test with employees and approve the decision to expand the rollout.
Bring your review requirements
Make the first pilot
ready to evaluate.
Start with one workflow, the sources it needs and the people responsible for approving it.
Discuss your workflow Explore government delivery