Evidence scorecards: compare outcomes fairly
A proposed evaluation method with explicit measurements, missing data and independence. No invented product scores.
🎯 Для Developers, integrators and teams evaluating an AI pilot
- Choose a bounded task
- Distinguish reference material from measured product evidence
Цю сторінку ще не перекладено. Ви читаєте англійський оригінал.
Tvijo methodology, 29 October 2026. This is an internal editorial method, not an independent ranking. Tvijo and competitor scores are unassigned: there is no comparable product experiment yet.
What to compare
Compare a specific job. A model, editor, extension, terminal harness and MCP server contribute different parts of the result. A model leaderboard score cannot be assigned to the whole Tvijo system.
| Criterion | Primary measure | Required context |
|---|---|---|
| Usefulness | Fraction of tasks accepted against predefined conditions | Numerator, denominator and exclusions |
| Code review | Confirmed findings and false positives | Diff difficulty, evaluator and review time |
| Time | Time to accepted result | Setup, waiting, review and rework |
| Economics | Full cost per accepted task | API, allocated subscriptions, infrastructure and human work |
| Connection | Successful first runs | Client version, OS, elapsed time and operator help |
| Reliability | Successful repeats, failures and recovery | Attempts, timeouts and settings |
| Data and access | Mandatory access scenarios passed | Isolation, denied actions, audit and test limitations |
| Usability and learning | Observed task completion and participant feedback | Experience and workload; no medical conclusions |
Failure of a mandatory access boundary blocks acceptance. A high speed score cannot compensate for it.
If a 1–10 scale is needed
Display the raw measure first. For the accepted-task fraction, a predefined display could be 1 + 9 × p, where p ranges from 0 to 1. This is a chosen visual scale, not a scientific standard. Time and cost need their own predefined customer-agreed thresholds. Do not move thresholds after seeing results.
No measurement means not available (N/A). It is neither zero nor one star nor a negative judgment. A composite needs published weights, adequate coverage and passed mandatory checks. For now, use separate criteria without an overall star rating.
Comparison record
Publish the task and dataset, client and model versions, harness, prompt, tools, time and money limits, attempts, acceptance rule, raw outcomes, date and author. Identify the sponsor, evaluator's relationship to the product and reproduction instructions.
Tvijo self-assessment, customer case and independent test are distinct labels. Independence describes the evaluator and conditions, not the page design. “Verified” needs a linked check and a stated scope.
A small, fair experiment
- Select real tasks and agree acceptance conditions before running them.
- Compare the existing process with Tvijo on comparable work. Account for experience, ordering and learning; randomize conditions where practical.
- Hide tool identity during outcome evaluation where feasible.
- Count all attempts, failures, manual fixes and elapsed work.
- Report variation and sample limitations. A twenty-task pilot is preliminary evidence, not proof of universal superiority.
Overlapping confidence intervals alone do not establish that a difference is absent. Analyse the difference using the experiment's design. pass@k measures success in at least one of k attempts; pass^k, in corresponding agent evaluations, describes consistent success across all k repeats. They are not interchangeable.
Research is not a Tvijo performance promise
METR, 2025 reported 19% longer completion time for 16 experienced developers working on 246 tasks in familiar repositories. The 2023 Copilot experiment reported 55.8% shorter time on an HTTP-server task. Tasks, participants and tools differed. Neither study measures Tvijo.
The 2026 METR update describes participant-selection and time-measurement problems. DORA 2025 reports associations with delivery and stability; it is not a randomized Tvijo trial. Record publication status, such as preprint, separately from study design.
Current Odoo evidence: synthetic tests establish limited prototype properties. They do not score business usefulness, live ERP integration or TvijoCode usability. Pilot boundaries · Adoption path · Practice records.
Джерела
Each source was opened by a human on the date shown. Product behaviour is described from this deployment, not from marketing material.
🔗 Зв'язки статті
Відкрити повний граф знань ↗Наступні кроки
Пов'язані матеріали
From knowledge to practice: sources and learning evidence
Private reference retrieval, source versions and explicit read, practice and verification records.
Adoption and evidenceAdoption paths: roles, tasks and shared integrations
Choose a first pilot, distinguish adapters from products, and build partnerships around a measurable result.
💬 Коментарі