2026-07-31 · evals reliability
LLM Safety for AIDC Transcripts
When warehouse or device telemetry feeds Claude or any frontier model, treat prompts, responses, and embeddings as sensitive data. Use policy-aware routers, encrypted vector stores, audit logs that cite source events, and human approval before copilots execute high-risk commands.
Telemetry is not “just context”
Barcode rejects, RFID portal hits, and ticket notes often contain supplier names, locations, and operational exceptions. Dumping that into an unbounded chat is a compliance incident waiting to happen.
Controls that match production agents
- Policy-aware prompt routers — classify intent before tools run.
- Redaction — strip or hash PII and sensitive partner fields when the task does not need them.
- Encrypted / access-controlled vector stores — embeddings inherit the same RLS mindset as multi-site WMS policies.
- Audit trails — every answer cites the scan or ticket IDs it used.
- Human gates — no silent writes to ERP master data from a copilot without approval.
This is the same reliability culture as outcome-driven evals and the verification stage in WaybillAgent.
Key takeaways
- Safety is an operations requirement, not a slide for auditors after launch.
- Scoped MCP tools beat “chat with your warehouse.”
- Score releases on false-action rate, not demo fluency.
Further reading
FAQ
No. It means copilots ship with the same controls as any system that can mutate inventory or expose supplier PII — scoped tools, logged decisions, and eval gates before production.
Related work
- WaybillAgent — Walk the warehouse, Claude does the audit.
- Outcome-Driven Agent Evaluation (Hive) — Evaluation patterns for agents that must improve real outcomes.
- AIDC Barcode Toolkit — Barcode and AIDC building blocks for Claude Code.
Canonical on https://josephrwanda.com/writing/llm-safety-for-aidc-transcripts. Cross-posts should link back here.