Government and public sector evaluation patterns
Government evaluation patterns — primitive ratio, span rules, GEPA labeling, cadence aligned to NIST AI RMF and OMB M-24-10.
Recommended primitive ratio for government AI: 60/25/15 — deterministic rules, code assertions, judges. Public-sector AI inherits the strictest documentation and reviewability burden of any vertical because every decision can be challenged in court or audit.
Primitive ratio
Deterministic rules
60%
Statutory deadlines, exemption citations, eligibility rule references, FOIA exemptions
Code assertions
25%
Reading-level scorers, PII recall, routing-table validation, criterion coverage
LLM judges
15%
Plain-language quality, court-defensibility of exemption rationale, denial-reason readability
Pattern table
Citizen chatbot — policy grounding
Judge
Faithfulness to current agency rule
Citizen chatbot — reading level
Code scorer
Flesch-Kincaid ≤ 8
Citizen chatbot — escalation
Rule
Eligibility/legal questions auto-escalate
Benefits — rule citation
Rule
Citation to CFR/state reg present
Benefits — recommendation gate
Rule
Output marked "recommendation" not "decision"
Benefits — fairness
Code scorer
Group-fairness ratio ≥ 0.8 across protected classes
Benefits — denial-reason quality
Judge
Plain-language readability for citizen
FOIA — exemption citation
Rule
Statutory subsection present per redaction
FOIA — deadline
Rule
20-day clock tracked per request
FOIA — PII recall
Code scorer
≥ 99% on labeled PII set
FOIA — over-redaction
Judge
Court-defensibility
Procurement — criterion coverage
Rule
All solicitation criteria scored
Procurement — fairness
Code scorer
Bias check across business categories
Public-safety — disparate impact
Code scorer
Required on any enforcement-influencing output
Public-safety — advisory gate
Rule
No automated enforcement actions
Span rules
policy.lookup— version of the agency rule referencedeligibility.eval— which CFR/regulation sections were appliedexemption.cite— FOIA exemption subsection per redactionrouting.decide— destination office/form matchbias.score— disparate impact tracked per output
NIST AI RMF mapping
The four NIST AI Risk Management Framework functions map to evaluation evidence:
GOVERN
Tier policy + RBAC + audit trail per evaluation
MAP
AI inventory tied to scenario suite per use case
MEASURE
Evaluation reports + drift dashboards
MANAGE
Alert engine + rule pass-rate threshold gates
OMB M-24-10 alignment
For federal agencies covered by OMB M-24-10 (Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of AI):
Rights-impacting and safety-impacting AI must have pre- and post-deployment testing
Continuous monitoring with documented thresholds
Public AI use case inventories
Generative-AI-specific guardrails
Stratix evaluation evidence shape:
Pre- and post-deployment scenario suite frozen at deployment time
Production traces sampled and scored against same suite
Quarterly reports on drift, fairness, accuracy
GEPA labeling
For each government judge, label ≥ 50 paired examples:
Citizen-services chatbot: Stratified across program types and languages
Benefits eligibility: Mix of approval/denial/needs-more-info, labeled by senior caseworkers
FOIA exemption: Labeled by FOIA officers; exemption rulings from FOIAonline / state appeals
Procurement: Labeled by contracting officers
Public-safety: Labeled by trained civil-rights reviewers, not just enforcement personnel
Run judge optimization with budget="medium". Hold out 20% for non-overlapping validation.
Cadence
Per-PR
CI gate runs scenario suite (rules + assertions)
Daily
Sample production traces; full evaluation including judges
Weekly
Disparate-impact audit; FOIA deadline-compliance report
Monthly
GEPA re-optimization on judge drift
Quarterly
NIST AI RMF MEASURE function report; OMB M-24-10 reporting prep
Annually
Public AI use-case inventory update; full bias re-audit
See also
Last updated
Was this helpful?