O&A Consulting
Field notes on evaluation · 01

Goldens aren't ground truth.

Where golden datasets fit in agentic evaluation, where they fall apart, and what to reach for instead. Two of these slides you can click.

O&A Consulting, LLC oandaconsult.com
02 · Credit where it's due

Goldens are the right tool for a closed world.

A golden dataset is real, representative requests paired with known-good answers. In the right conditions, that's a genuinely good regression test. Those conditions are narrow.

Scope

Narrow and fixed

A bounded task, not startup or experiment mode piling on new capabilities every week.

Data

Stable sources

A corpus that isn't constantly changing. No live streams, no retriever you're actively improving.

Question

Consistency, not correctness

Best at "does it answer the same way across runs and versions," more than deciding what's right.

Purpose

A real smoke test

Real questions, real answers, to catch gross breakage before it ships. A tripwire, not a verdict.

Leave that quadrant and the ground shifts. ↓

03 · The failure mode · click it

Watch a good change turn red.

agent output · pm-morning-briefing

AAPL: no rating changes published this week. Maintain the desk's overweight; nothing in the tape forces a revision.

Golden test PASSmatches expected answer
Contract check PASSgrounded · complete · in-policy

Everything's green. Now make the agent better.

04 · The other tax

Build and maintain are different problems.

A stable, scoped world lowers the maintenance cost. It does nothing for the build cost, which is paid up front, in people.

Maintenance

scales with change over time
stable
agentic

The cost your closed-world conditions actually fix.

Build

paid once, before any test exists
stable
agentic

Unchanged by scope. Writing and verifying every answer takes real SME labor, which is why most golden sets end up thin and unrepresentative.

05 · The assumption underneath · click it

The answer key can be wrong.

golden case #218 · settlement date

Q: When does a standard US equity trade settle?

Expected: "T+2, trade date plus two business days."

US equities moved to T+1 in May 2024. The "golden" answer still says T+2, stale since the day it was written down.

An agent that correctly says T+1 now fails this test. The label is confidently wrong, and it fails the right answer.

A golden encodes a human's answer as truth. If the human was wrong, incomplete, or stale, you've built a test that punishes the correct output.

Comparing to "the real answer" smuggles in an assumption: that the real answer is real. Goldens don't remove the trust problem. They move it to your labelers.

06 · The approach

Score properties, not a string.

01A contract. The properties an output must hold (policy, budgets, forbidden tools, PII, schema), checked deterministically.
02Evidence, not a reference. Groundedness and omissions checked against the actual sources the agent used, not a frozen answer key.
03Telemetry. Cost, latency, tokens, tool errors, and escalations, straight from the trace.
04Agent as investigator, not judge. It gathers quoted evidence; deterministic code does the scoring. Calibrated against humans.
+Golden cases, kept as one layer: a small stable tripwire, never the foundation.

A golden asks whether you produced the expected answer. A contract asks whether you stayed in the rules, grounded every claim, and missed nothing that mattered.

Only one of those questions survives the system getting better.

07 · O&A Consulting

We build the layer that survives drift.

agent-trustkit is contract-driven trust evaluation for agentic systems: deterministic behavioral checks, telemetry, omission detection, and a calibrated, evidence-quoting analyst. Your first trust report is free.

Goldens aren't ground truth Charlotte, NC · NAICS 541511