Embedded expert feedback for AI products
Turn expert judgement into better AI.
Capture short, optional decisions from the professionals using your product. Keep the context. Review the feedback. Test what makes your agents better.
In development. Exploring design-partner pilots.
One useful question. Context you can keep. Feedback you can act on.
The useful part is often the reason.
- “That reference isn’t comparable.”
- “The number is right, but the explanation is wrong.”
- “I need the amendment before I can decide.”
A rating can tell you whether an answer helped. These judgements tell you what to investigate next. While It’s Thinking is being built to capture that context without turning every user into a full-time reviewer.
Professional feedback, not just a satisfaction score.
A small question. A controlled improvement loop.
Start with one decision your agent needs to handle better.
-
Step 1: Choose the moment
Place a question at an agreed waiting, review or correction moment. Keep it relevant to the user’s task—and optional.
-
Step 2: Capture the judgement
Ask which interpretation is better, what evidence is missing or why an answer was changed. Preserve the context and an optional reason.
-
Step 3: Review the signal
Let your team assess the response, keep legitimate disagreement and decide what is suitable for evaluation.
-
Step 4: Test the improvement
Use reviewed feedback to test changes to instructions, retrieval, rules or models. You decide what reaches production.
Capturing feedback does not automatically update an agent or train a model.
Try one useful question.
See what a professional contributes—and what your product team receives.
Illustrative scenarios. Your answers stay in this page and are not used for training.
Property review · Illustrative data
A draft valuation report and a later model show different market rents. Both refer to the same valuation date. The change record is not included.
Show source extracts
-
Draft report v1
Market rent at 1 June 2026: €125/m²/year.
-
Model v2
Market rent at 1 June 2026: €132/m²/year.
Which interpretation is better supported by the information shown?
What mattered most? Optional.
What would you need to see? Optional.
Your feedback record appears here.
Tender evidence · Illustrative data
Requirement: provide one completed hospital project above €20m, delivered as lead contractor.
Show supplied records
-
Project A · Hospital refurbishment
Your company’s role is not stated in the supplied record.
-
Project B · Office development
Lead contractor role is documented.
What would you check before claiming this requirement is met?
What is the key distinction? Optional.
What would you need to see? Optional.
Your feedback record appears here.
Corrected explanation · Illustrative data
A supplied variance schedule splits an €80,000 decline into €35,000 lower rent income, €20,000 lower cost recovery and €25,000 additional repairs.
Show the correction
-
Original AI text
Lower occupancy caused the entire €80,000 decline.
-
Professional’s revision
Lower rent income explains part of the decline. Lower cost recovery and additional repairs also contributed.
What should the agent learn from this correction?
What was the main issue? Optional.
What would you need to see? Optional.
Your feedback record appears here.
A captured answer is a starting point for review, not a verdict.
Feedback with enough context to use.
A click on its own tells you little. A structured record can show what was reviewed, what the professional chose and what still needs checking.
-
The decision
The selected interpretation, correction or missing piece of evidence.
-
The context
The task, source references and relevant versions—within the scope you agree to share.
-
The reason
An optional explanation, uncertainty or exception worth investigating.
-
The next step
A review status and a path into your evaluation workflow. Not an automatic production update.
Sample feedback record
- Workflow
- Property review
- Question
- Interpretation comparison
- Response
- Interpretation B
- Reason
- Missing change record
- Evidence
- Draft report v1 · Model v2
- Question version
- property-interpretation-v1
- Review status
- Captured · Not reviewed
- Permitted use
- Local demonstration only
A reviewer decides whether this should become an evaluation case.
Keep using your evaluation stack. Start by improving what goes into it.
Waiting is one moment. Not the whole product.
Useful feedback can happen while an agent works, when a professional reviews its answer or just after a correction. The right moment depends on the workflow—not on keeping people busy.
-
While it works
Ask about context that is already available. Never hold the result back for an answer.
-
During review
Capture the source, exception or interpretation behind a professional judgement.
-
After a correction
Ask what the agent missed while the reason is still close to the task.
No relevant question? Show nothing.
For products where professional judgement matters.
We are starting with document-heavy workflows where a small decision can reveal an important distinction.
-
Property and valuation software
Capture why a discrepancy needs investigation, which evidence is missing or why one interpretation is better supported.
“What would you check before changing this rent figure?”
-
Tender and bid software
Capture how professionals select evidence, recognise gaps and distinguish a promising reference from a fully supported claim.
“What is missing before this project can support the requirement?”
-
Specialist document review
Capture why a reviewer changed an explanation, rejected an assumption or requested a full review.
“What should the agent do differently next time?”
Example workflows—not announced customer integrations.
Your users’ attention. Your team’s judgement. Your control.
A pilot should define how feedback is collected and used before it starts. These are the boundaries we build around.
-
Participation stays optional
People can skip, ask for more context or say a question is outside their expertise. The main workflow keeps moving.
-
Disagreement stays visible
Different answers can reflect different assumptions. We do not treat the majority as automatically correct.
-
Updates need a decision
Feedback is reviewed and tested before you choose to change an agent. No silent model updates.
-
Data use is agreed upfront
Before processing pilot data, we agree what is shared, who can access it, where it is processed and how long it is retained. Cross-customer reuse is not part of the default pilot.
Start with synthetic or approved examples. Agree the data scope before connecting a live workflow.
Design-partner programme
Start with one workflow worth improving.
Tell us where your users make decisions your agent still struggles with. We will use the conversation to scope a focused pilot—not a platform rebuild.
- Pilot scope
- One workflow. A small set of expert questions. A defined review process. A measurable quality question.
- What we explore together
- Where a question belongs, what a useful response looks like, how your team will review it and whether the resulting changes improve the agent without making the workflow worse.
- Commercial note
- Pilot scope, responsibilities and pricing are agreed before work begins.
Questions we are asked.
No. It is not an access test or a way to prove someone is human. The inspiration is a small, useful decision. Participation is optional, and the purpose of the feedback is made clear.
No. An answer is first captured as feedback. Your team decides whether it should become an evaluation case, a proposed change or something to investigate further. Model training would be a separate, explicitly agreed process.
The disagreement remains part of the record. It may reveal missing context, different assumptions or more than one defensible answer. We do not automatically turn a majority vote into a rule.
That is something the pilot must test. Questions are short, optional and limited to agreed moments. We measure dismissals, time spent and effects on the main workflow—not just completed answers.
The user can request more context, decline or move to a fuller review. We do not compress complex professional decisions into a forced A/B answer.
No. Waiting is one possible moment. Review and correction can also provide useful opportunities, provided the question fits the task.
That is not the goal. The pilot focuses on collecting and reviewing better-contextualised feedback, with an export path agreed for your existing evaluation workflow.
That is the intended product model. We scope the interface, context and integration for one host product during the pilot. This website shows a local demonstration, not a released universal SDK.
Yes, the feedback does not have to lead to model training. It can help your team identify missing rules, challenge thresholds or create tests. Any rule change still needs review and validation.
The pilot agreement defines access, permitted uses and retention. Client-specific feedback is not automatically pooled across customers or added to Elementrix’s domain knowledge.
The concept is in development and we are exploring design-partner pilots. The sample on this page is illustrative. Production scope and readiness are agreed separately.
That depends on the workflow, integration and review requirements. We agree scope and pricing before work starts, rather than quoting a per-click price without knowing what makes the feedback useful.
What do your experts notice that your agent still misses?
That is a good place to start.