Customer-aware AI operations“The new version looks better on average. Is it safe for every customer?”
Ship AI changes without breaking a customer promise.
Synvolv connects a proposed change to the customers it can affect, replays it against production behaviour, applies customer policies, contract rules, entitlements and economics, then gives your team the decision: who moves, who stays, who needs review, why, and the rollout to approve
Connect with what you already run
- GitHub
- GitLab
- OpenTelemetry
- Anthropic
- Stripe
- Snowflake
- Postgres
- Braintrust
support-agent: move default model from GPT-5 to Claude Sonnet 5 #1816
- ci / build — Successful in 2m 14sDetails
- ci / test — Successful in 4m 02sDetails
- Synvolv · customer-impact review — Do not release globally · 41 accounts affectedDetails
Synvolv customer-impact review
Works
Basic · English FAQPro · English FAQ
Regresses
Spanish refund workflow
Not permitted
Meridian HealthProvider policy
Not entitled
6 Enterprise accountsPremium-model requirement
Needs more evidence
2 accountsInsufficient replay coverage
Release to 27 eligible customer accounts
Customer-impact review
Your PR should know which customers it changes.
A pull request can change far more than code. It can change a model, a prompt, retrieval, tool permissions, retry logic, agent steps, routing, fallback behavior, or the product logic around the agent. Synvolv detects the relevant change, maps it to the production workloads and customers that can be affected, and replays representative production scenarios in shadow.
support-agent: move default model from GPT-5 to Claude Sonnet 5 #1816
- ci / build — Successful in 2m 14sDetails
- ci / test — Successful in 4m 02sDetails
- lint — Successful in 41sDetails
- Synvolv · customer-impact review — Do not release globally · 41 accounts affectedDetails
Synvolv customer-impact review
Works
Basic · English FAQPro · English FAQ
Regresses
Spanish refund workflow
Not permitted
Meridian HealthProvider policy
Not entitled
6 Enterprise accountsPremium-model requirement
Needs more evidence
2 accountsInsufficient replay coverage
Release to 27 eligible customer accounts
Not only
Quality +0.8%.
One number, standing in for every customer at once.
But
- 01Which customers improved?
- 02Which regressed?
- 03Who is not entitled to the new behavior?
- 04Which customer rules block it?
- 05What happens to cost and latency?
- 06Which accounts need more evidence?
- 07What scope should actually be released?
Synvolv answers all seven, per customer, before the change ships.
Shadow mode
See what Synvolv would decide before it can touch anything.
Shadow mode is read-only. Synvolv reads a copy of what production already does, replays your next change against it, and shows which customers would move, which would stay, and why. Nothing changes for your users until you approve it.
Shadow reads from
- GitHubGitLabGitHubthe pull request: what is about to change
- OpenTelemetryProduction telemetrywhat ran, for which customer
- StripeHubSpotCustomer identityplans, entitlements, contracts
- BraintrustEvaluation / outcome signalshow it scored, how it resolved
- Configuration historyprompts, models, tools and rules over time
Connect what you already run. Availability is confirmed per connector during setup.
Shadow
Synvolvread-only copy
Reads a copy of what production already does. Writes nothing back.
- Review changes.
- Replay historical scenarios.
- See affected customers.
No write path to production
Would have decided
- AcmeMoveinside threshold
- Meridian HealthStayprovider policy
- VelaReviewnot enough replay coverage
- Read-only
- No production write path required
Start in shadow. Keep your existing stack. No production action happens without approval.
The decision
One change. A different answer for every customer.
The same update to your AI can be right for one customer and wrong for the next. Synvolv checks each customer before anything ships, and tells you what to do with each one.
The change
Support agent v17
GPT-5 → Claude Sonnet 5
- AcmeShip itBetter and cheaper on their traffic
- Meridian HealthHoldTheir BAA covers Azure OpenAI only
- VelaCheck firstNot enough evidence it works for them
- MonarchShip with a capAlready past their included credits
Three checks decide it, for every customer: Does it work? Is it permitted? Does the account stay healthy?
Aggregate vs accounts
Your customers aren’t averages.
- A model can win the eval.
- A prompt can improve the overall score.
- A retrieval change can reduce latency.
- A new workflow can lower total cost.
- The aggregate dashboard can stay green.
And the global rollout can still be wrong.
Overall
- +0.8pt
- Quality
- −28%
- Cost
- −14%
- Latency
Looks like an easy release.
- 01AcmeInside thresholdCost −31%Move
- 02Meridian HealthProvider policyNew provider prohibited by current policyStay
- 03Enterprise cohortPlan entitlementPremium model included in planStay
- 04Spanish supportRegressesResolution −8.2 ptsStay
- 05NorthstarStableCost −22%Move
The average was right.The global decision was wrong.
Synvolv makes the decision at the level where the consequence actually happens: the customer.
When you find out
Did your customers like the change?
You should not need an angry account, a support escalation, or the month-end margin report to find out.
A production change can look healthy overall while:
- onetool starts looping
- onehigh-usage account becomes expensive to serve
- onecustomer should have stayed on the previous version
Move those discoveries before the rollout.
Synvolv connects the production evidence and customer context before your customers become the feedback loop.
How the call gets made
This is how fast-moving teams make the call today.
GitHub knows what changed. Your traces know what ran. Your eval platform knows how it scored. Customer Success remembers which customer is different, Sales knows what Enterprise bought, Legal knows what the agreement says, and Finance has the margin spreadsheet. And the person expected to say yes or no is usually an engineer or product lead.
Today the answer is assembled by hand
The new version looks better on average. Is it safe for every customer?
Evals say +0.8 overall. Does every plan include the new behavior? @dana what did Enterprise buy?
Enterprise is entitled to GPT-5. Not sure whether v17 changes that.
Meridian is different. I think their BAA only covers Azure OpenAI. @legal has the contract.
The margin spreadsheet is in the shared drive, last updated Friday.
Six tabs open (
#1816, traces, the eval run). Building a cohort now. I’ll write a rollout rule so we can still ship this week.
The startup still needs to ship this week. So the team makes the best call it can. And if something breaks, everyone reconstructs the decision again in reverse.
With Synvolv the same question, answered
The new version looks better on average. Is it safe for every customer?
Synvolv answered from your connected systems
Read 4 sources · Evals · Entitlements · Contracts · Traces
Not yet.
47 customer accounts affected
Evidence 5
- 31 ready
- Quality remains inside threshold · Cost / successful resolution −18%
- Evals
- 8 stay
- Enterprise plan is entitled to GPT-5
- Entitlements
- 4 stay
- BAA does not cover Anthropic yet
- Contracts
- 2 regress
- Spanish refund resolution −7.1 pts
- Evals
- 2 review
- Not enough replay coverage
- Traces
Release scope ready
The context stops living in eight places. They meet at the decision your team is trying to make.
Where the answers come from
The context Synvolv holds for your company. You manage it.
Policies, contracts, plans, entitlements, budgets and data rules live in one knowledge base per company: synced from the systems that own them, or entered by your team. Every decision above points back to the entry it used, and you can change any entry.
- Synced from your systems, or entered by hand
- Every entry shows where it came from and who owns it
- One record per customer, one per company
Meridian Health
Knowledge base- Scope
- All workflows · Meridian Health
- Effective
- Since contract v3
- Verified
- Legal · contract v3, clause 4.2 (BAA subprocessors)
- Cited by
- Release decision · v17 Claude Sonnet 5 → Hold
History
- 3dLegal confirmed clause 4.2
- 5dSynced from contracts
- 4wEntry created
Synvolv makes that customer context part of the system.
The same four facts the thread went looking for. Where each one lives today, and where it lives once it is part of the system.
Today: eight places, one thread, a best call.With Synvolv: one record, one decision, with the evidence.
The product, end to end
What working with Synvolv looks like.
Each flow starts where your team already works — a pull request, a Slack channel, the Synvolv app — and shows what Synvolv does next.
Customer context
Your customer agreement changed. Does production know?
Those facts can determine which model is allowed, which provider can be used, which tools the agent may call, what quality must be maintained, how much usage is included, which release the customer can receive, and what happens when a limit is crossed.
ContractSales
Master services agreement · v3
- 4.2 Subprocessors — model providers must be covered by the BAA
- 5.1 Service level — Spanish resolution ≥ 92%
- 7.3 Data handling — no customer content used for training
A contract is not only something Sales closes.
PlanBilling
Enterprise · Support agent
- Model entitlement — GPT-5, GPT-5 mini
- Maximum cost / resolution — $0.60
- Included usage — 250,000 resolutions a year
An entitlement is not only something Billing stores.
PolicySecurity
Customer policy · Meridian Health
- Providers — Azure OpenAI only, per the signed BAA
- Tools — refunds need human approval
- Fallback — GPT-5 mini when a limit is crossed
A customer policy is not only something Security signs off.
Meridian Health
Customer record
- Plan
- Enterprise
- Workload
- Support agent
- Provider policy
- Azure OpenAI only · per BAA
- Model entitlement
- GPT-5 · GPT-5 mini
- Spanish resolution floor
- 92%
- Maximum cost / resolution
- $0.60
- Current release
- v16 · GPT-5
- Incoming release
- v17 · Claude Sonnet 5
Rules in force 7
- which model is allowedGPT-5 · GPT-5 miniPlan
- which provider can be usedAzure OpenAI onlyContract
- which tools the agent may callRefunds need approvalPolicy
- what quality must be maintainedSpanish resolution ≥ 92%Contract
- how much usage is included250,000 resolutions a yearPlan
- which release the customer can receivev16 · v17 blockedPolicy
- what happens when a limit is crossedFall back to GPT-5 miniPolicy
The gap
What the team remembers
Nobody from that room is on the pull request.
- Sales closed the renewal
- Legal wrote clause 4.2
- Security signed the BAA
What Synvolv holds
v17 held for Meridian Health
- Clause 4.2 — Azure OpenAI only, per the BAA
Six months later, someone changes the product.Those facts still have to matter.
Synvolv keeps them connected to the customers and workloads they apply to.
- approved customer policies
- contract terms
- plan rules
- entitlements
- quality thresholds
- economic limits
The engineer does not have to remember this.Synvolv applies it to the decision.
Versioned rules
And when the customer rule changes, the decision changes too.
Synvolv is not a permanent “policy says no” gate. Imagine Meridian adds the new provider to its BAA and approves it.
Policy update
Provider policy · Meridian Health
The change
- −
Azure OpenAI only, per the BAA - +Azure OpenAI · Anthropic on AWS Bedrock
Decisions re-evaluated 4
- Support agent / English
Stay→Eligible - Support agent / Spanish
Stay→Eligible after quality review - FAQ fallback route
Stay→Eligible - Release · GPT-5 → Claude Sonnet 5
Blocked→Eligible
- Historical replay
- 95.3% resolutionfloor 94%
- Expected cost / resolution
- −24%
- Recommended next step
- Add Meridian to the next approved canary
Version history
- v4Anthropic on AWS Bedrock added to permitted providersTomás Herrera · Security reviewjust now
- v3Spanish resolution floor raised 92% → 94%Meridian Health · Legal4w
- v2Refunds require human approvalMeridian Health · Security3mo
Your product changes.Your customer agreements change.Production should stay aligned with both.
Ask Synvolv
Ask the question you already have.
Your team should not need to know which dashboard contains the answer. Synvolv answers from the same customer-aware operating context and shows the evidence behind the answer.
Why did Acme’s support agent get expensive after v17?
Acme · support agent · since v17
Synvolv answered from your connected systems
Read 5 sources · Traces · GitHub · Evals · Billing · Customer records
Root cause found
Evidence 5
- Refund-verification calls increased
- 1.2 → 3.5 / conversation
- Traces
- Change introduced in
- PR #1816
- GitHub
- Resolution
- +0.6 pt
- Evals
- Cost / resolution
- $0.33 → $0.58
- Billing
- Also affected
- 4 customer accounts
- Customer records
Suggested next step
Eligible first
“Roll it out to 5%.”5% of whom?
A percentage rollout tells you how much traffic to move. It does not tell you which customers should be inside that traffic. Synvolv resolves the eligible customer set first.
Eligible set
support-agent v17GPT-5 → Claude Sonnet 5evaluated 4 min ago
63 customers considered
27eligible
- AcmeBusinessReplay: resolution +0.6 pt · quality floor met
- NorthstarBusinessReplay: quality floor met · within cost limit
- MonarchProQuality floor met · past included credits, cap applies
- VelaStandardReplay: groundedness inside threshold · quality floor met
+ 23 more
8excluded by entitlement
- HaldenEnterprisePlan entitles GPT-5 · v17 changes the model
+ 7 more
4excluded by policy
- Meridian HealthEnterpriseBAA covers Azure OpenAI only
+ 3 more
2held for missing evidence
- OrielStandardInsufficient replay coverage · not enough evidence it works for them
+ 1 more
22unaffected
No traffic on the changed workflow in the last 30 days
Release scope5% of traffic from 27 eligible customers · 36 customers unchanged
Support-agent traffic, one cell per account · coloured where v17 runs
Thenwith Synvolv
5% of eligible traffic.
Everyone in the 5% is eligible.
- Meridian Healthnot in the 5%BAA covers Azure OpenAI only
- Haldennot in the 5%plan entitles GPT-5
- Orielnot in the 5%no evidence it works for them
Notwith a percentage rollout
5% of everybody.
14 accounts in the 5% are not eligible.
- Meridian Healthin the 5%BAA covers Azure OpenAI only
- Haldenin the 5%plan entitles GPT-5
- Orielin the 5%no evidence it works for them
During the canary
One customer regressed. One customer rolled back.
Every customer is watched on its own terms. During the canary each account is measured against the quality floor in its own record, because the average hides the one that is slipping.
One customer slipped below its floor. Synvolv caught it in the first bad batch, because the floor was that customer's, not a global threshold.
Only that customer went back. Its traffic returned to the previous version within minutes. The rest kept running, and never noticed.
Canary · support-agent v17
GPT-5 → Claude Sonnet 5 · 5% of traffic · running 41 min
Customers 5 of 41
Activity
Continue canary26 customers stay on v17
Vela → previous versionRolled back to v16
Regression detected · Vela0.81 against a 0.90 floor
Started canary5% of traffic · 27 eligible
Roll back the customer that regressed — not every customer that didn’t.
How far it goes
Start with answers.Add control after the answers earn your trust.
A new platform should not need your production traffic before it can prove that its decisions are useful.
Three stages. Each one gives Synvolv more reach and gives you a harder control in return: a decision you read, an action you approve, a limit enforced before the request runs. Each stage is your call. Stop at any of them.
01Shadow
Reads
- You give
- Read access to your systems.
- You get
- The decision Synvolv would make, with the evidence behind it.
Would release to 27 of 41 customers
GPT-5 → Claude Sonnet 5 · 12,420 scenarios replayed
Recommends only · nothing is applied
- Acme
- Move
- Meridian Health
- Stay · provider policy
- Vela
- Move · watch groundedness
See what Synvolv would decide.
Connect
- GitHub
- Production telemetry
- Customer identity
- Evaluation / outcome signals
- Configuration history
Then
- Ask questions.
- Review changes.
- Replay historical scenarios.
- See affected customers.
- See recommended release scope.
Read-only.No production write path required.
after the answers earn your trust
02Approved actions
Acts with approval
- You give
- Permission to act, one approval at a time.
- You get
- Canaries, pauses and rollbacks, through the tools you already run.
Roll back Vela → v16?
groundedness 0.81 · below Vela's floor of 0.90
Nothing runs until someone approves
- Proposed by
- Synvolv · 2 min ago
- Scope
- Vela only · 26 customers continue
- Runs through
- your release controls
Let the recommendation become an action.
When your team is ready
- Create customer-scoped canaries.
- Pause a rollout.
- Roll back an individual customer.
- Apply approved policies.
- Execute through supported gateways, release controls, and application hooks.
Your existing infrastructure stays in place.
only where exact control is worth it
03Synvolv Gateway
In the request path
- You give
- The request path, for the workloads you choose.
- You get
- Hard limits enforced before a request runs.
Daily agent budget $600
used $572 · forecast today $941
Enforced in the request path
- Approved response
- Fallback after $600
- Applies to
- Acme · support agent
- Checked
- before every request
Put Synvolv in the request path only where exact control is worth it.
For workloads that need hard runtime enforcement
- Per-customer routing
- Hard tenant budgets
- Pre-request spend reservation
- Entitlement enforcement
- Provider / model restrictions
- Tool-call limits
- Agent-step limits
- Loop protection
- Immediate fallbacks
- Usage + cost reconciliation
Runtime control
“Why did this tenant burn $900 before lunch?”
A successful release is not the end of the job.
One tenant can become disproportionately expensive without the global dashboard looking alarming.
Acme · the morning, five minutes at a timethis morning
- Agents loop.
- Usage spikes.
- A fallback starts using the expensive model.
- A tool gets called five times when one was enough.
- A customer burns through included usage.
- Agents loop.
- Usage spikes.
- A fallback starts using the expensive model.
- A tool gets called five times when one was enough.
- A customer burns through included usage.
- Gateway · $600
Fallback after $600Cap expensive workflowRequire approvalContinue + generate overage event
Used $572Budget $600Forecast today $941
With Synvolv Gateway, those customer-level limits can be enforced before execution — not discovered after the invoice arrives.
Customer cost-to-serve
Know what every customer costs you to serve — and what made them expensive.
Your provider invoice tells you what you spent.A token chart tells you usage grew.Neither tells you why one customer stopped making economic sense.
Synvolv connects cost back to the customer · the workflow · the agent version · the tool behavior · the release · the outcome.
When commercial context is connected, add revenue · included usage · credits · contract terms · contribution margin.
Acme
- Revenue
- $4,000 / month
- Agent cost
- $1,940 / month
- Contribution marginMargin
- 41% / 55% target
- Target
- 55%
What changed? Support Agent v17 · Refund-tool calls / resolution 1.2 → 3.5 · Cost / successful resolution $0.33 → $0.58
v16 before the release
- Retrieve account$0.04
- Classify intent$0.05
- Refund tool · call 11.2 calls on average$0.10
- Confirm outcome$0.08
- Close$0.06
Cost / successful resolution$0.33
v17 now
On v16 this resolution cost $0.33.
- Retrieve account$0.04
- Classify intent$0.05
- Refund tool · call 1$0.10
- Refund tool · call 2$0.10
- Refund tool · call 3$0.10
- Refund tool · call 4half of resolutions$0.05
- Confirm outcome$0.08
- Close$0.06
Cost / successful resolution$0.58
What can we do?
Choose an option to see what it does to this resolution.
Don’t just find the expensive customer.Find the behavior making them expensive.
One context
The systems you already use know pieces of the answer.
- Your evaluator can measure behavior.
- Your gateway can execute a route.
- Your release system can expose a variation.
- Your billing platform can meter usage.
- Your CRM knows the customer.
- Your contract system stores the terms.
- Your finance tooling sees the dollars.
Synvolv resolves those facts into the customer-level operating decision.
- Should this customer receive this behavior?
- What changes for them?
- Is it permitted?
- Are they entitled to it?
- What will it cost to serve them?
- What should happen next?
And after the action:Did reality match the plan?
The operating loop
One customer context across the operating loop.
Change
What changed in the model, prompt, retrieval, tool, workflow, code, or customer rule?
Understand
Which customers and workloads does it touch?
Test
What changes for those customers?
Resolve
Who should receive it now?
Plan
What exactly should happen?
Approve
Who must sign off?
Act
Release, route, limit, pause, or enforce.
Verify
What actually happened?
Learn
Use the result the next time.
Review, Ask, Release, Runtime, Gateway, and Economics are not six unrelated products. They are different moments where the same customer operating context gets used.
Find out who it changes before your customers do.
Start with the change your team is already debating.
Bring any of theseA model migration.A prompt edit.A retrieval change.A new tool.A workflow update.A routing change.A customer-policy change.An AI-related pull request.
You do not have to trust Synvolv with production to see whether the answer is useful. Start in shadow. Add control when you are ready.