Key Metrics
Problem & Outcome
Problem
MIT's 2025 "GenAI Divide" study found ~95% of enterprise generative-AI pilots deliver no measurable P&L return — not because of model capability, but because teams can't distinguish "we built something" from "we understand what we built." No diagnostic existed to measure AI-project comprehension — the gap between describing a system and understanding its failure modes, blast radius, and evaluation criteria. Existing maturity assessments measure adoption, not depth.
Outcome
A live, public AI evaluation tool at wilfredmorgan.com/comprehension-audit processing real assessments daily. Dual-run LLM judge with temperature 0.0 prevents scoring variance. Heuristic fallback scorer activates automatically when the API is unavailable, with a hard ceiling at L3 because keyword matching cannot assess nuanced comprehension. Automated CRM segmentation routes contacts to three maturity-band lists with tier-specific welcome sequences. The framework was extracted into 8 open-source modules with 25 synthetic calibration examples and published on GitHub under MIT license. Stage 3 of The Comprehension Standard.
Architecture
Models
Tools
The scoring pipeline runs two independent LLM evaluations per submission at temperature 0.0. If the two runs disagree beyond a threshold, the system flags for review rather than averaging — because averaging a 35 and an 85 into a 60 tells nobody anything useful. Each dimension carries a different weight: context architecture and evaluation quality are weighted highest as the strongest predictors of project success. The heuristic fallback scorer is the key architectural decision. When the LLM API is unavailable, a keyword-based scorer activates with a hard ceiling at L3 — it cannot assign L4 or L5 because keyword matching cannot assess nuanced comprehension. A degraded but honest score beats a confident but unreliable one. Report URLs use base64url encoding — no database, no storage backend. The URL IS the report.
What I Did vs AI
| Task | Me | AI / Other |
|---|---|---|
| Scoring algorithm design | Designed 8-dimension weighted scoring framework, defined L1–L5 maturity band thresholds, chose dual-run disagreement detection over averaging | Claude executed the implementation code from my architectural spec |
| Fallback architecture | Decided L3 hard ceiling for heuristic scorer, defined signal-word libraries per dimension, designed the degradation strategy | Claude generated the keyword matching logic from my specification |
| CRM integration design | Defined 3-tier segmentation logic, maturity band routing rules, welcome sequence strategy per tier | Claude wrote the Brevo API integration code |
| Open-source extraction | Defined 8-module boundaries, wrote all EXPLANATION.md architectural decision records, designed the calibration example schema | Claude Code extracted modules from the monolith per my module boundary spec |