Skip to content
TP
← All writing

Build the eval before you touch the retriever

Published
{{POST_DATE}}
Reading time
6 min
Filed under
RetrievalEvaluationDraft

Most retrieval work goes wrong in the same place: teams optimise before they can measure, then argue about taste for a quarter.

{{POST_BODY}} Replace this with the full post. The outline below is the argument I would make.

Every retrieval project starts with a change that feels obviously good. A bigger embedding model, a smarter prompt, a chunking tweak. The change ships, the answers feel different, and nobody can say whether the product improved.

The fix is unglamorous. Assemble a labelled query set from real usage before making a single retrieval change, define what relevant means for your product in writing, and put the numbers in CI so nobody has to remember to run them.

The cost is real: two weeks with nothing visible shipped. The return is that every argument after that ends in a number instead of an opinion.

$./next-step

Disagree with any of this?

I would rather be corrected than be consistent. Send me the counterargument.