Scorecards you can defend
Criteria written down before the evaluation, so a score is a measurement and not an opinion.
EVX Quality
Quality assurance platform
Reviews that produce a documented change, not a monthly score.
Interaction evaluation, scorecards, coaching and calibration — with an audit trail that shows what changed and why.
Who this is for
For operations where quality is a monthly number nobody can act on.
The problem
A score tells you where you landed. It does not tell you what to change on Monday. Most QA produces reports; almost none produces change.
What this covers
Evidence, not impressions
Every finding points at the specific interaction that triggered it. Coaching is about a moment, not a trend.
Calibration
Evaluators scored against each other on the same interaction, because an inconsistent scorecard is worse than none.
The evaluation
- Scorecards written firstCriteria defined before the review, so a score is a measurement and not an opinion.
- Interaction evaluationEvery finding points at the specific moment that triggered it.
- CalibrationEvaluators scored against each other on the same interaction. An inconsistent scorecard is worse than none.
What comes out of it
- Coaching tied to a momentFeedback about a call the agent remembers, not a trend from last month.
- Audit trailWhat changed, when, and because of which interaction.
- Signal classificationWhether a finding was verified or inferred is recorded. An inferred signal cannot escalate to a critical incident without being promoted first.
Where it is used
- Monitoring that changes behaviourA scored interaction that never reaches the agent is an archive entry. The coaching conversation is the product; the score is only how it gets prioritised.
- Calibration between evaluatorsTwo evaluators scoring the same call differently is the most common failure in QA, and the one nobody measures. Calibration sessions exist to make the score mean the same thing.
- Evidence when a customer disputesWhat was said, when, by whom, with the recording attached. Most disputes end there.
- Finding the process fault behind the agent faultWhen the same error appears across agents, the problem is the script, the system or the training — not the people.
How it is delivered
We evaluate against a scorecard built for your operation, not a generic form. Sampling is defined and stated: what proportion of interactions, chosen how, and by whom.
- A scorecard you agree withIf you cannot defend the criteria to your own team, the score is worthless.
- Evaluations with evidence attachedEvery score points to the moment that produced it.
- Coaching as the outputDelivered to the agent, recorded, and followed up.
- Calibration on a scheduleBetween evaluators, and with you.
Questions we get asked
- Can you audit our own team, not yours?
- Yes. Quality assurance as an external service is a normal engagement, and the independence is part of the value.
- How many interactions do you review?
- A defined and stated sample. Anyone who answers "all of them" without describing the method is describing a wish.
- Do you monitor AI agents too?
- Yes, on the same scorecard. An automated interaction that nobody audits is the fastest way to scale a mistake.
- What do agents see?
- Their evaluation and the coaching. Internal calibration notes and client commentary are not part of that.