Making AI Evaluation Deployment Relevant Through Context Specification

Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments, where operational constraints shape usability as much as model quality. Through a structured analysis of existing benchmark families across speech, chat/RAG, and vision systems, we identify critical gaps between laboratory evaluation practices and real-world deployment conditions in low-resource environments. We argue that the meaningful unit of assessment is the deployed system rather than an isolated model and that effective evaluation frameworks must integrate task performance with deployment conditions such as noisy inputs, code-switching, intermittent connectivity, low-end hardware, and domain shift. At the same time, benchmarks should recognize that different application classes require distinct evaluation profiles rather than a single aggregate score that obscures operational differences. To support practical decision-making, we propose a shared reporting framework that preserves comparability across systems and application types while remaining sensitive to deployment context. Finally, we emphasize the need for concise and actionable reporting artifacts for policymakers, donors, and implementers, including standardized one-page benchmark cards, deployment profiles, and explicit documentation of failure handling procedures and human oversight mechanisms.

The ontology-based contextual AI evaluation (OB-CAIE) methodology was developed to address a lack of scientific rigor that arises from unclear testing coverage, to balance human expertise and automations, and to address a lack of reproducibility of AI evaluation testing environments. OB-CAIE strengthens the current state of AI evaluations by addressing the first step in the scientific method by clearly defining what will be tested. Two ontologies represent the tractable problem space in the OB-CAIE methodology: the Domain-Specific Ontology (DSO) and the Evaluation Process Ontology (EPO). The DSO is the what; the EPO is the how. An OB-CAIE problem space can be used for one or multiple AI evaluations. The OB-CAIE methodology allows for human judgment at specific points, in scientifically grounded ways, and in complex subject areas where human feedback is genuinely irreducible or machine irreplaceable. A key advantage of the OB-CAIE methodology is that failure points can be traced, visualized and analyzed within the canonical OB-CAIE methodology problem space.

Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context-conditioned user simulators, and persona- and goal-conditioned proxy metrics. We conclude with domain-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone.