The record is part of the task: matched-record evaluation of text classifiers across maintenance, safety and recall reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its presence. Measuring these factual differences is essential for evaluating report generators. We study Jev, a System One decision model, as a simple, low-cost judge of agreement with physician-written reference reports. Our evaluator checks whether each statement is supported by the other report and combines these judgments in both directions to capture unsupported claims and omissions. A single-question configuration reaches Kendall correlations of 0.573 on RadEvalX and 0.398 on RadEvalExpert with expert error counts, outperforming an open natural language inference judge under matched decomposition and aggregation. One support question per statement retains similar expert agreement to seven while using 43-45% fewer judgment input tokens. At the documented API price, judgments cost under three cents per hundred report pairs, excluding local decomposition. In a separate controlled-error test, Jev detects false negation with an AUROC of 0.977. Local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset. Finding-count and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection. These results support Jev as a practical judgment component for measuring factual differences in generated radiology reports and identify where more elaborate evaluation remains valuable.

Crash datasets that carry an investigator narrative hold information the coded fields omit. Coding those narratives at scale has been blocked by three obstacles. Frontier large language models are costly at that scale, their generated text cannot be verified, and no rule says how much output a human must check. This paper formulates narrative coding as gated, typed decisions answered by Jev, a System One model that returns probabilities over analyst-defined options and generates no text. A screen covered 499,500 Texas narratives and 195,857 were coded with a 27-question schema. Cost is governed by schema size rather than narrative length. The probabilities are audited against coded fields and against 2,416 blinded human judgments drawn under a stated sampling design. Two frontier large language models are benchmarked on the same records. Against human labels the typed model attains an F1 of 0.908. One frontier model gains 0.059 and the other is indistinguishable from it. Calibration varies by model rather than by paradigm, so each model must be audited. Recalibration on the same labels reduces calibration error by a factor of 3.3. Agreement with coded fields understates fidelity to the narrative by a median of 0.26 in kappa. A resolution-floor bound covers any model that reports probabilities on a discrete grid. A review budget over flagged records gives the records a human must read per variable and per year. Adding the calibrated variables to the coded fields raises the injury and fatal crashes attributed to nine factors by 10,747 per year.