Evaluation set
Representative requests cover account access, billing, product configuration, APIs, integrations, imports, exports, suspected defects, and general product questions. Test data must be fictional, redacted, or authorized for evaluation. Each request has expected support facts, allowed sources, missing-information requirements, and an escalation expectation.
Review dimensions
- Factual alignment with the ticket and approved documentation
- Use of relevant sources without unsupported claims
- Correct category, urgency, and escalation judgment
- Safe requests for missing information
- Customer-facing clarity and actionability
- Time from intake to a reviewable draft
Edit definitions
No change means the reviewer would send the draft without altering meaning or wording. Light edit means wording, tone, or a small factual clarification changes while the resolution and action remain intact. Substantial edit means the diagnosis, next step, safety boundary, escalation, or material factual content must change.
Unsupported-statement review
A reviewer flags any statement that is not supported by the customer conversation, approved product guidance, authorized account context, or a clearly identified inference. Fluent wording does not reduce this requirement.
Escalation scoring
An escalation is correct when the issue falls outside approved support guidance, requires engineering or privileged authority, presents security or data risk, or lacks enough evidence for a safe customer answer. The report is checked for environment, reproduction details, expected and actual results, impact, severity reasoning, and missing evidence.
Publication rules and limitations
AppsResolve will publish the evaluation date, ticket count, category mix, model and configuration context, reviewer role, scoring definitions, and limitations with any result. Internal benchmarks are not customer performance data and do not guarantee the same outcome for another product, documentation set, or support queue.