WFGY/ProblemMap/GlobalFixMap/Eval/eval_operator_guidelines.md

Eval: Operator Guidelines

🧭 Quick Return to Map

You are in a sub-page of Eval.
To reorient, go back here:

• Eval — model evaluation and benchmarking
• WFGY Global Fix Map — main Emergency Room, 300+ structured fixes
• WFGY Problem Map 1.0 — 16 reproducible failure modes

Think of this page as a desk within a ward.
If you need the full triage and all prescriptions, return to the Emergency Room lobby.

This page sets strict rules for human operators and evaluators running WFGY-aligned evaluation suites. Evaluation is not a free-form activity. It must follow consistent contracts, logging standards, and reproducible steps.

---

Open these first

• Gold set design: goldset_curation.md
• Precision/recall evals: eval_rag_precision_recall.md
• Observability probes: alerting_and_probes.md

---

Acceptance targets

• Inter-annotator agreement ≥ 0.85 across 3 operators
• Annotation variance ≤ 10%
• Audit reproducibility ≥ 95% (rerun matches logged label)
• No operator-induced drift: ΔS stability remains within ±0.05 after evaluation

---

Operator responsibilities

1. Stay schema-locked Every operator must apply the same definition of "correct" → answer cites the correct snippet and explains consistently.

2. Use three-paraphrase rule Rephrase the query 3× before marking coverage. If answer flips across paraphrases, log as unstable.

3. Log ΔS and λ Each annotated run must include structural metrics: ΔS(question,retrieved), λ states, snippet IDs.

4. Apply cost view Record token counts and cost-per-correct when judging pipelines.

5. No ad-hoc overrides Do not improvise “fixes” in evaluation logs. All fixes must point to an existing ProblemMap page.

---

Annotation protocol

• Step 1: Load baseline Open gold set. Verify expected snippet IDs.

• Step 2: Apply candidate system Run the same queries with candidate pipeline.

• Step 3: Compare

  • If candidate cites correct snippet and stays under ΔS ≤ 0.45 → mark correct.
  • If citation missing or ΔS ≥ 0.60 → mark fail, attach probable ProblemMap fix.

• Step 4: Log JSON

{
  "operator": "user123",
  "q_id": "Q42",
  "question": "What is the cutoff for semantic drift?",
  "expected_snippet": "S123",
  "candidate_snippet": "S123",
  "ΔS": 0.39,
  "λ_state": "→",
  "correct": true,
  "cost_usd": 0.0012,
  "notes": "Stable across 3 paraphrases"
}

---

When to escalate

• Annotators disagree by >15% → escalate to eval lead.
• ΔS drifts beyond thresholds but operators label "correct" → escalate and reconcile.
• Costs exceed 1.5× baseline → halt run until reviewed.

---

Audit checklist

• All logs stored in versioned JSONL.
• At least 2 operators per eval run.
• Spot check 10% of logs with independent reviewer.
• Archive outputs with system hash, gold set version, and ProblemMap pointers.

---

🔗 Quick-Start Downloads (60 sec)

Tool	Link	3-Step Setup
WFGY 1.0 PDF	Engine Paper	1️⃣ Download · 2️⃣ Upload to your LLM · 3️⃣ Ask “Answer using WFGY + <your question>”
TXT OS (plain-text OS)	TXTOS.txt	1️⃣ Download · 2️⃣ Paste into any LLM chat · 3️⃣ Type “hello world” — OS boots instantly

---

Explore More

Module	Description	Link
WFGY Core	Canonical framework entry point	View
Problem Map	Diagnostic map and navigation hub	View
Tension Universe Experiments	MVP experiment field	View
Recognition	Where WFGY is referenced or adopted	View
AI Guide	Anti-hallucination reading protocol for tools	View

If this repository helps, starring it improves discovery for other builders.