AI quality assurance

Why score every conversation?

Every other function in your company is measured on all of its output. Support gets measured on a sample somebody picked by hand. Here is what that costs you, and what changes when the sample is all of it.

You are reviewing 1.2% of your conversations.

  • Agents on your team30
  • Conversations reviewed per agent, per month20
  • Total reviews, roughly two weeks of one person's time600
  • Conversations your team actually handled50,000
  • What your QA lead saw1.2%

Take a mistake that happens in one of every 200 conversations. At 50,000 conversations that is 250 times a month. At 1.2% coverage you would expect to see it three times. Three instances reads as bad luck, and nothing in your data would tell you otherwise.

250 failures a month 3 you would expect to catch

The sample is not random either. Reviewers pick conversations that are quick to review, which pulls it toward short tickets and away from the long messy ones where things tend to go wrong.

Can you trust a score the AI produced?

Every QA lead asks this, and it is the right question. If they do not believe the score, nobody acts on it.

Every score shows its reasoning

Each judgment cites the passage in your SOP or knowledge base it was measured against. Your QA lead can open it and check.

Calibrated against your team

Your QA leads grade a sample by hand. We tune until the AI agrees with them, and you sign off before it goes live.

Scores are contestable

An agent who thinks a score is wrong can see exactly what it was based on and raise it. Disagreements feed back into calibration.

Nothing happens automatically

We do not trigger warnings, rankings or discipline. Results go to your QA lead and they decide what to do.

Already looking at a QA tool?

How RevelirQA compares, side by side.

Your bot needs QA more than your agents do.

  • The same scorecard runs across human agents and AI agents.
  • When you deploy a bot you lose the control you had without noticing: a person seeing that something was off and flagging it.
  • Find where the AI is confidently wrong before your customers do.
Human agent
88%
Tone
Policy
Resolution
AI agent
91%
Tone
Policy
Resolution

One scorecard, applied to both.

What changes in your QA lead's week.

Today

  • Two weeks pulling and reading 600 conversations
  • Scores that drift depending on who reviewed and when
  • Coaching built on the handful of tickets they happened to open
  • No way to tell whether last quarter's fix actually held

With RevelirQA

  • Grading runs on every conversation, automatically
  • A ranked list of what needs attention
  • Coaching on the exact conversation, the exact moment, the exact policy
  • The same measure every month, so you can see whether a fix held

Judge it against your own scorecard.

Six weeks, and your QA leads decide whether we got it right.

  • Your QA leads grade a sample by hand. Revelir grades the same conversations. You compare the two, and we keep adjusting until your leads sign off
  • Once they sign off, that same grading runs across 10,000 of your conversations, far more than your team could read manually
  • By the end you will have seen it work on your own conversations, and if you are not convinced, we stop there

What the pilot covers →