Boardroom Answers · AI & Data · AI, Data & Analytics
Models drift. Providers silently update endpoints. Prompts rot. What is your drift story — detection, retraining, and what happens when Claude changes under you?
The question a Chief Data Scientist / VP of AI & Analytics asks.
The short answer
We don’t retrain models — we detect: versioned prompts and models that bust the cache on change, a per-generation quality score with automated degradation alerts, and forecasts graded against reality. Instruments built; history honestly starts at launch.
The full executive answer
First, the framing that changes the answer: we do not train models, so classical retraining-on-drifting-data does not apply. Our drift surface is three things — provider model behaviour changing, our prompt stack evolving, and the world our advice describes moving — and each has a distinct control. On provider change: our fast-tier model is pinned to a dated version, model resolution is centralised and configuration-driven, and any model change alters the cache fingerprint, so outputs from an old model are never silently served as if from the new one. The same is true of prompts — the prompt stack carries an explicit version that busts the cache on material edits, so prompt changes are deliberate, versioned events, not rot.
On detection: every generation gets a deterministic quality score stored alongside it, and a monitoring layer aggregates average quality, worst-decile quality, provider-fallback rate, cache hit rate and latency into a health status of healthy, watch, or degraded, with a scheduled job that alerts operations on degradation. A behavioural shift in a provider model shows up there as a quality or fallback anomaly. The regression harness also re-runs on every build, so a provider change that breaks output contracts is caught before deploy in CI, and the guardrail and provenance gates catch it per-generation in production.
On the world moving: the calibration loop logs our forecasts as scoreable predictions and grades them against later real assessments — if our advice drifts from reality, the calibration record shows it numerically. Now the honest gap, stated before you probe it: we are pre-launch, so there is zero production drift history — the instruments exist, the time series does not. What I can show is the monitoring code, the alert wiring and the versioned invalidation; what only time can provide is the track record.
Grounded in: NIST AI RMF MEASURE 2.4 (monitoring for drift and degradation) and MANAGE 4.1; ISO/IEC 42001 §9.1 monitoring and measurement; SR 11-7 ongoing monitoring expectations.
The natural next questions
Related governed answers
- Give me your AI bill of materials — exactly which models, which providers, which versions, and who approved them.?
- You run two models on the same question. Walk me through what happens, mechanically, when they disagree — who wins?
- I could build most of this with a foundation model and good prompts in a quarter. What is scientifically defensible here that a generic LLM wrapper doesn’t have?
Want this answered live, on your data?