CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-06

EvalLoop: A Methodology for Evaluation-Driven Iterative Improvement of Business AI Systems

Kenneth Benavides, Josh Fleischer, Danti Chen

Teams deploying large language models in business contexts need evaluation systems, yet most treat evaluation as static model selection: run benchmarks, rank models, deploy the winner. This framing misses evaluation's primary value for production systems--diagnosing why a system underperforms and guiding what to fix. We present EvalLoop, a methodology for evaluation-driven iterative improvement. EvalLoop organizes evaluation around three mechanisms: (1) dimensional metric grouping that decomposes quality into business-relevant dimensions enabling orthogonal failure diagnosis; (2) failure mode classification that categorizes why outputs fail within weak dimensions, bridging diagnosis to action; and (3) a structured iteration workflow where each evaluation run varies one system variable and compares dimensional profiles before and after. We validate EvalLoop through a case study on sales intelligence briefing generation (10 models, 3 providers, 18 metrics, 5 dimensions, 3 iterations). Dimensional diagnosis identified that 69% of hallucination failures were prompt-induced interpretation errors--invisible in aggregate scoring. A targeted prompt fix improved the best model from 82.6% to 94.6% overall, with improvement concentrated in diagnosed dimensions (Content Accuracy +16.8pp, Synthesis Power +26.4pp). An undirected configuration change in a prior iteration produced zero impact, illustrating the cost of iterating without diagnosis. We additionally demonstrate that dimensional profiling enables deployment-specific model selection, and that a one-time blind human gate on a finalist panel (4 models, 16 cases) confirms dimensional rankings while resolving multi-criteria deployment trade-offs--a 94% reduction in review burden compared to evaluating the full design. EvalLoop is packaged as reusable artifacts (playbook, agent specification, template repository) for adoption by other teams.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-06

Three-Phase Evaluation of AI-Assisted Software Development Life Cycle

Joshua Strubel, Professor Carrie Russell, Carson Crockett, Jason Ferraro, Nathan Londhe, Uzayr Syed, et al.

This paper presents an exploratory evaluation of how increasing levels of AI autonomy affect software development productivity, requirement adherence, and developer cognitive workload. A team of four developers reimplemented the same full-stack web application across three sequen…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CRcs.AIcs.SE2026-07-03

Builder, Defender, Breaker: The Case Against Removing the Human from the AI-Driven Security Lifecycle

Mohamed Chahine Ghanem

Artificial intelligence has spread across the whole of the security lifecycle. The same family of models now writes application code, hardens it, and probes it for weaknesses, so that a single generative substrate increasingly performs all three roles at once. Enthusiasm for this…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-13

Self-Improving AI Coding Agents Through Accumulated Behavioral Rules: A Closed-Loop Framework

Aditya Aggarwal, Nahid Farhady Ghalaty

LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback. We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule, progr…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.SE2026-07-01

Adversarial Pragmatics for AI Safety Evaluation: A Benchmark for Instruction Conflict, Embedded Commands, and Policy Ambiguity

Brett Reynolds

Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model has followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, resisted an embedded command, or misreported progress in an agentic task…

View free PDFSource page