Sample report
Customer-Impact Report: economical model for FAQ traffic
This is the complete artifact Synvolv produces on a pull request. The same figures appear on every Synvolv surface so you can check them against each other.
- customers affected
- 47customers affected
- canary-eligible
- 30canary-eligible
- requiring action
- 4requiring action
- outside the requested scope
- 3outside the requested scope
47 affected = 30 ready + 17 requiring a different decision. 6 stay, 4 blocked, 2 regress, 2 economic risk, 3 review.
The proposed model change reduces expected cost and latency for Basic and Pro English FAQ traffic, but it creates material quality and outcome regressions in Spanish support and refund workflows. One customer has a contract-policy violation. A global release is not recommended.
- Current configuration
- Premium model
- Proposed configuration
- Economical model
- Workload
- FAQ answer generation
- Change source
- GitHub pull request
- Scenarios tested
- 12,420
- Report type
- Pre-release preview
Overall expected impact
Quality
+0.8 pt
Scored
Cost
−28%
Measured
Latency
−14%
Measured
Safe segments · eligible for the canary
Basic and Pro plans
No quality, cost, latency or policy regression detected in this segment
RecommendationEligible for the proposed canary
English support workflows
No quality, cost, latency or policy regression detected in this segment
RecommendationEligible for the proposed canary
Unsafe or excluded segments · held back
Meridian Health
Provider prohibited
The proposed provider is not permitted by this customer's approved policy
RecommendationExclude from the release until the policy is updated or an approved provider is used
BasisDeterministic — resolved from the connected customer policy
Enterprise cohort
Premium model included
The plan still requires the premium model
RecommendationHold at the current version — the entitlement is what was sold
BasisResolved from plan entitlement
Spanish refund workflow
Resolution −8.2 pts
Resolution regresses in the Spanish refund workflow
RecommendationExclude from release and investigate the affected dimensions
BasisScored on replayed traffic
BrightCare
Margin 48% against a 55% target
Quality holds, but cost per successful resolution rises 19%
RecommendationHold until the approved retry limit lands, then re-evaluate
BasisProjected from replayed cost against the account's revenue
Outside the requested scope
These were never part of the canary and are not counted in the 47. They are listed so the exclusion is explicit rather than silent.
- Enterprise plansPremium model included in plan
- Regulated accountsExcluded by customer data policy
- Prohibited providersExcluded by approved provider policy
Economic impact
- Expected monthly saving before exclusions
- $9,200
- Pro-plan contribution margin
- 56% → 64%
- Enterprise contribution margin
- No change
Recommended action
Do not release globally. Create a 5% canary for eligible Basic and Pro English FAQ traffic. Exclude Enterprise, healthcare, Spanish support, refund workflows, and customers with contract-policy conflicts.
Proposed release gates
- Roll back if quality falls by 2 points.
- Roll back if cost exceeds $0.25 per successful answer.
Rollback behavior
Return an affected customer to the previous model when an approved gate is breached. Keep the canary active for healthy customers unless the approved plan's global pause condition is reached.
Evidence used
- The GitHub pull request and the proposed model change
- 12,420 tested scenarios
- Customer and plan segmentation
- Quality, cost, latency, resolution, policy, and margin outputs
- The customer and commercial context needed to identify the contract-policy violation
Missing evidence
Reported by the running product from your own data coverage
Confidence
Calculated from the actual evidence and methodology — never hard-coded
Required approvers
Resolved from your active approval policy
How these numbers were produced
A customer-impact report mixes three different kinds of statement, and they do not carry the same weight. Synvolv labels which is which on every line rather than presenting them in the same typeface and letting you assume.
- Measured
- Cost, latency, token and error figures come from executing the candidate configuration against replayed production requests. These are observations, not estimates.
- Scored
- Quality figures come from running your approved evaluators — your own set, or a connected platform such as Braintrust, Langfuse or Arize — over the replayed outputs. The score is only as good as the evaluator behind it, and the report names which one ran.
- Predicted
- Business outcomes such as resolution or escalation cannot be replayed: they depend on what a human customer does next. These are modelled from historical relationships between the scored dimensions and the observed outcome, and they carry a confidence interval. Treat them as a signal to investigate, not as a measurement.
Scenario provenance is stated per report: replayed production traces where permission and replayability allow, otherwise approved evaluation or test scenarios. The 12,420 figure above is the count of scenarios executed, not a sample of your total traffic.
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.
