Success Criteria Re-evaluation

Evaluating LLMs is hard. Evaluating agents is even harder. This is one of the most common challenges I see when teams move from using LLMs in isolation to deploying agents that act over time, use tools, interact with APIs, and coordinate across roles. These systems make a series of decisions, not just a single prediction. As a result, success or failure depends on more than whether the final answer is correct. Despite this, many teams still rely on basic task success metrics or manual reviews. Some build internal evaluation dashboards, but most of these efforts are narrowly scoped and miss the bigger picture. Observability tools exist, but they are not enough on their own. Google’s ADK telemetry provides traces of tool use and reasoning chains. LangSmith gives structured logging for LangChain-based workflows. Frameworks like CrewAI, AutoGen, and OpenAgents expose role-specific actions and memory updates. These are helpful for debugging, but they do not tell you how well the agent performed across dimensions like coordination, learning, or adaptability. Two recent research directions offer much-needed structure. One proposes breaking down agent evaluation into behavioral components like plan quality, adaptability, and inter-agent coordination. Another argues for longitudinal tracking, focusing on how agents evolve over time, whether they drift or stabilize, and whether they generalize or forget. If you are evaluating agents today, here are the most important criteria to measure: • 𝗧𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀: Did the agent complete the task, and was the outcome verifiable? • 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Was the initial strategy reasonable and efficient? • 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Did the agent handle tool failures, retry intelligently, or escalate when needed? • 𝗠𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲: Was memory referenced meaningfully, or ignored? • 𝗖𝗼𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀): Did agents delegate, share information, and avoid redundancy? • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲: Did behavior remain consistent across runs or drift unpredictably? For adaptive agents or those in production, this becomes even more critical. Evaluation systems should be time-aware, tracking changes in behavior, error rates, and success patterns over time. Static accuracy alone will not explain why an agent performs well one day and fails the next. Structured evaluation is not just about dashboards. It is the foundation for improving agent design. Without clear signals, you cannot diagnose whether failure came from the LLM, the plan, the tool, or the orchestration logic. If your agents are planning, adapting, or coordinating across steps or roles, now is the time to move past simple correctness checks and build a robust, multi-dimensional evaluation framework. It is the only way to scale intelligent behavior with confidence.

𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗤𝗔. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗜 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗲𝘁. Last week, OpenAI rolled back a GPT-4o update because it got… too agreeable. The model started endorsing user biases just to keep people happy. They called it “𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆.” 🔗 Checkout: https://lnkd.in/gws7tBRe 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻? They over-indexed on thumbs-up feedback, not deeper evaluations. And it broke alignment. This is the iceberg enterprise AI teams are quietly sailing toward. AI systems don’t just fail because of hallucinations. They fail because apps don’t test what actually matters, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻? Most teams treat evaluation like a test gate. But LLM-integrated systems evolve: ✔️ Model behavior drifts ✔️ User inputs are unpredictable ✔️ Success criteria shift with every rollout And here’s the nuance many miss: 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗣𝗨𝗡𝗧𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲. 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁. 👉 The fix: Precision in evals is a good way to scale safely. 𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀: The missing enterprise skillset Think: 🧠 Solution Architect + 🎯 QA Strategist + 🧩 Product Thinker — but for AI systems. This isn’t QA. It’s a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. Here’s what Eval Architects can enable: ✅ 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 Draw from Anthropic's Claude success criteria (https://lnkd.in/gaS9ctXb) and OpenAI's Preparedness Framework (https://lnkd.in/grrYpr5v) — don’t just define KPIs once. 𝘽𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙙𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙩. ✅ 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 Include tests for reasoning, features, product outcomes, and business impact. ✅ 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 Not just to monitor — but to 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 from anonymized production data, identify failure modes, and suggest new test coverage. This is how evaluation becomes 𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, not reactive. 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 and 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗢𝗽𝘀 leaders are well-positioned to grow into this. They already think in systems, metrics, and risk. Now they need to think in 𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘀.

Over two decades of working in public health, education, climate resilience, livelihoods, and gender in India and South Asia, I’ve learned to value measurement and recognise its limits. ToCs and log frames are essential. They bring structure, clarity, and accountability. But when treated as compliance exercises rather than learning tools, they risk disconnecting reported success from real change. In Bihar, a skilling program for adolescent girls boasted 90% completion rates, yet only 12% transitioned into paid work. The ToC missed barriers like unpaid care work and mobility restrictions, which surfaced only through qualitative interviews. In Tamil Nadu, salt-tolerant paddy was introduced for climate resilience. Quantitative indicators flagged yield drops, but fieldwork revealed the real issues: lack of credit, market gaps, and social resistance to non-traditional seeds. In Maharashtra, a WASH programme reported 100% toilet access in public schools. Yet girls in SC/ST hostels avoided food and water to avoid using unsafe facilities—flagged only via behavioural observation. In Bangladesh, cyclone shelters met all infrastructure benchmarks. But many women refused to enter them during an actual event, citing fears of sexual violence and lack of privacy—data missed in the original evaluation. These examples are not anomalies. They illustrate what happens when we define success narrowly—by what’s easy to count, not what truly matters. This isn’t a case against measurement. It’s a call to design for it differently: fund ethnographic follow-ups, use participatory tools, and train MEL teams to notice silences—not just check indicators. Most importantly, ask: who defines success? Community voice, contextual insight, and behavioural nuance must be embedded from the start, not added on as anecdotes at the end. Development in South Asia isn’t linear, and our evaluations should not pretend it is. What have you learned when the numbers looked good—but the reality on the ground told another story? #Evaluation #MixedMethods #DevelopmentEffectiveness #WEE #PublicHealth #ClimateResilience #LearningNotJustCounting

Rethinking Project Success: Beyond the Triple Constraint Traditionally, project managers measured success by three classic criteria: ⏱️ Time – Did we deliver on schedule? 💰 Budget – Did we stay within the approved costs? ✅ Quality – Does the final product meet the agreed specifications? A project can be on time, on budget and technically correct—yet still fail if the client isn’t satisfied or the outcome doesn’t meet their real needs. A project can hit every internal target and still miss the bigger picture. A more complete framework looks at four dimensions of success: 1️⃣ Project efficiency – Did we meet budget and schedule expectations? 2️⃣ Impact on customer – Did we satisfy the client’s real needs? 3️⃣ Business success – Did the project create measurable commercial value? 4️⃣ Preparing for the future – Did it open new markets, products or technologies that position us for growth? This approach reminds us that ✅ Long-term value matters just as much as immediate results ✅ Projects aren’t just tasks to complete—they’re investments in tomorrow. Client acceptance shifts the spotlight from the accounting ledger to the marketplace, highlighting that the ultimate measure of success is the value we create for the people we serve. How does your organization measure success? #ProjectManagement #Leadership #CustomerFocus #BusinessGrowth

Your proposal got rejected again? Stop blaming your science. Start looking at the evaluation criteria. I spent 2 years collecting rejections until I realized this painful truth: Funders literally tell you how to win. Most researchers just don't listen. It's all there. In black and white. The evaluation criteria. Yet 90% of proposals I review ignore it completely. They write what they think sounds impressive. They guess what reviewers want to see. They hope their brilliance will shine through. Hope is not a strategy. Here's what changed my success rate from 0% to 60%: I stopped writing proposals. I started writing scoring sheets. Every. Single. Element. Mapped to criteria. If they score "innovation" → I show innovation If they value "feasibility" → I prove feasibility If they want "impact" → I measure impact Not my interpretation. Their exact words. This carousel breaks down the 6 ways to turn evaluation criteria into your funding roadmap. Because the difference between funded and rejected isn't your research quality. It's whether reviewers can easily score what they're looking for. 💾 Save this. ♻️Share this. 📝Use this. Your next proposal depends on it. ♻️ Repost to help a colleague stop guessing and start winning. PS. What's one thing you learned about evaluation criteria the hard way? 👇 ___ New here? I’m Dr. Luria Founou. I help ambitious African researchers turn their ideas into fundable projects, their story into influence, and their career into a confident, burnout-free path to leadership.

A researcher tired of defining project success using only three elements (cost, quality, and time). He studied all the research over a decade to identify the most important success factors in engineering projects. He concluded that there are eight criteria for project success. The first three, of course, were the commonly cited ones above. They were followed by: Project profitability: Concorde Aircraft Project, Nest Stadium Project Environmental safety: Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Project Project staff satisfaction: The Big Dig -Boston Project End-user satisfaction: Apple Maps Project A project may be completed within the required cost, quality, and time, but still fail if the other elements are neglected.

Evaluation is both an art and a science, balancing systematic analysis with the nuanced understanding of complex interventions. The "Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully" guide by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) introduces a refined framework for using the six evaluation criteria—relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability—in a way that goes beyond checklist approaches. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, adaptability, and context sensitivity in every stage of the evaluation process. This document integrates three decades of global evaluation practice with contemporary priorities such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and human rights frameworks. It underscores the need to consider interconnections, equity gaps, and the holistic impacts of interventions. By providing examples, insights, and practical guidance, the manual ensures that evaluators and decision-makers can navigate diverse contexts, addressing complexities in implementation and fostering meaningful accountability and learning. Tailored for policymakers, evaluators, and development practitioners, this resource elevates evaluation practice to ensure that interventions not only meet their objectives but also generate transformative and sustainable impacts. By adopting its principles, users can advance evidence-based strategies, improving global collaboration and the effectiveness of development cooperation.

Understanding Strategic Evaluation: The Key to Business Excellence In a world where precision drives success, strategic evaluation serves as the cornerstone of impactful decision-making. This framework equips organizations with tools to assess, monitor, and refine strategies, ensuring sustainable growth and competitive advantage. Let’s break it down step by step. 🔹 Evaluation Criteria: The Foundation Strategic evaluation starts by assessing feasibility, acceptability, and suitability to ensure alignment with organizational goals: Suitability: Does the strategy fit your long-term vision? ➡️ Focus on strategic logic and strategic fit with the market. Acceptability: Does the strategy balance risks and rewards? ➡️ Gauge financial risk, customer and stakeholder acceptance, and government alignment. Feasibility: Is the strategy executable? ➡️ Analyze financial resources, technology capabilities, competitive response, and time constraints. 🔹 Critical Success Factors: Drivers of Excellence Success hinges on identifying and monitoring critical factors that align with market demands: MIT Approach: ➡️ Understand industry structure, competitive dynamics, and environmental factors. ➡️ Factor in temporary market shifts and functional managerial capabilities. Critical success factors act as guiding pillars, ensuring your strategy meets and exceeds expectations. 🔹 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Measuring Success KPIs are the heartbeat of strategic control, offering actionable insights into your organization’s performance: Monitored and controlled through a balanced scorecard, tracking: ➡️ Customer satisfaction ➡️ Financial performance ➡️ Internal business processes ➡️ Innovation and learning metrics KPIs keep organizations agile, enabling real-time adjustments to evolving market dynamics. 🔹 Performance Measurement: Diving Deeper Analyzing divisional and overall performance ensures your strategy is delivering value: Divisional Performance Measurement: ROI, ROCE, and RI comparisons. Firm-Wide Data Analysis: Focus on profitability and sales margins to stay competitive. 🔹 Strategic Control: Closing the Loop The final piece of the puzzle is strategic control, ensuring every element aligns for maximum impact: Implementing the balanced scorecard as a comprehensive control tool. Analyzing profitability, sales margins, and other metrics to refine and perfect strategies. Key Takeaway Strategic evaluation isn’t just about measuring; it’s about learning, adapting, and excelling. By focusing on the core principles of evaluation criteria, critical success factors, KPIs, and strategic control, businesses can master the art of achieving and sustaining success. 🔗 Follow me for more expert insights on strategy and performance excellence! #BusinessStrategy #StrategicEvaluation #KPIs #BalancedScorecard #Leadership