A system that is right most of the time and cannot say why is hard to use for anything that matters. The person acting on its output has to either trust it blindly or check everything by hand, which removes the point of having it.
Explainability is what lets a person check the one decision in front of them, quickly, and move on.
01What an explanation is, in practice
- What the system read: the record, the document, the passage.
- What it decided, and how sure it was.
- Which facts drove the decision: these fields matched, this value was outside the limit.
- Which method made the call: a fixed rule, a similarity match or a model.
02Why it matters more than an accuracy figure
An accuracy figure describes the system on average. A person never acts on an average; they act on one flag, one match, one answer. If that one is wrong and unexplained, trust in all the others goes with it. If it is wrong and explained, the person sees why, corrects it and the system can learn.
03Build in an order that explains itself
- Rules first. Where a decision can be made by a clear rule, use the rule. It is exact and its reason is the rule.
- Meaning next. Where wording varies, compare by meaning and show what was compared with what.
- A model's reasoning last, for the cases the first two cannot settle, with its reasoning shown and its confidence stated.
Used in this order, most decisions are made by the most explainable method available, and the model handles only what needs it.
04Keep a person in the right places
- High confidence, low risk: act and log.
- Middle confidence: propose, and let a person approve.
- Low confidence or high cost: hand it to a person with the evidence laid out.
- Every correction a person makes is recorded and used to improve the next decision.
05Questions to ask any vendor
- Show me one decision and exactly why it was made.
- What does the system do when it is unsure?
- Can an auditor see, a year later, what was decided and on what evidence?
- How do corrections from our staff change its behaviour?
In short
- An explanation shows what was read, what was decided, which facts drove it and which method was used.
- People act on single decisions, so each one must be checkable.
- Rules first, meaning next, model reasoning last keeps most decisions simple to explain.
- Confidence should decide when a person is brought in.
Questions
Does explainability make a system less accurate?
Not in the systems most businesses need. Using rules and retrieval where they suffice, and a model only where needed, tends to make results both clearer and more consistent.
Is this required by regulation?
Requirements vary by country and sector, and they are tightening. Whatever the rule where you operate, being able to show why a decision was made is the practical protection.
Can large language models explain themselves?
They can describe reasoning, which is useful but not proof. Stronger explanations come from the system around the model: the evidence retrieved, the rule applied, the fields that matched.
How does Quantum Beetle approach it?
Every system is built rules first, meaning next and AI reasoning last, and each decision shows why it was reached and where the evidence came from.
Sounds like your problem?
Tell us about it. We'll say honestly whether the swarm can help, and what it would take.
Read next
- How to find duplicate material codes in your SAP material masterMaterial master data
- What sovereign AI means, and when on-premise AI is the right callOn-premise AI
- Duplicate payments: how they happen and how to stop them before the money leavesFinance controls
- What master data management is, in plain words, and why it decides whether AI worksMaster data
- How to clean a material master: a plan that survives contact with a real plantMaterial master data
- On-premise language models or a cloud AI service: how to choose for company dataOn-premise AI