01Manual sampling misses too much
Traditional QA often reviews a small fraction of conversations. That can hide recurring policy failures, tone problems or escalation patterns that only appear when the whole queue is visible.
- Increase review coverage
- Keep the rubric consistent
- Surface outliers for human review
02A score is only useful if the rubric is useful
Auto QA should measure the things the business actually cares about: correctness, policy adherence, resolution quality, tone, escalation behaviour and any role-specific requirements.
- Accuracy
- Policy compliance
- Resolution completeness
- Tone and empathy
- Escalation quality
03AI and human agents should be measured differently where needed
A bot may need confidence, deflection and escalation checks. A human agent may need empathy, judgement and documentation checks. A shared platform can still keep the overall quality model consistent.
- Role-specific criteria
- Shared outcome measures
- Comparable exception categories
04QA should change the operation
The point is not to generate another dashboard. QA should improve prompts, knowledge, training, routing and escalation rules.
- Fix repeated failure modes
- Coach people from real examples
- Improve knowledge gaps
- Adjust automation boundaries