Real-World AI Evaluation: How FRAME Generates Systematic Evidence to Resolve the Decision-Maker's Dilemma

This study proposes CIRCLE, a six-stage, lifecycle-based framework to bridge the reality gap between model-centric performance metrics and AI system outcomes in deployment. Current approaches such as MLOps frameworks and AI model benchmarks offer detailed insights into system stability and model capabilities, but they do not provide decision makers outside the AI stack with systematic evidence of how these systems actually behave in real world contexts or affect their organizations over time. CIRCLE operationalizes the Validation phase of TEVV (Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation) by translating priorities of stakeholders outside the stack into measurable signals. Unlike participatory design which often remains localized, or algorithmic audits which are often retrospective, CIRCLE provides a structured, prospective protocol for linking context sensitive qualitative insights to scalable quantitative metrics. By integrating methods such as field testing, red teaming, and longitudinal studies into a coordinated pipeline, CIRCLE produces systematic knowledge; evidence that is comparable across sites yet sensitive to local context. This can enable governance based on materialized downstream effects rather than theoretical capabilities.

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.

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.