PRISM
Six capabilities. One production reality.
PRISM helps you test before launch, understand real behavior after launch, and turn important failures into changes you can validate.
- User intent
- Exchange order #4821
- Agent state
- intent = refund
- Tool call
- process_refund → 200 OK
- Outcome
- Refund issued, expected exchange
A request can return 200 OK and still fail the user.
Capabilities
One platform, six connected capabilities
Test the situations you did not plan for
BetaTell PRISM what the AI should do. It creates realistic users, changing requests, missing details, tool problems, and edge cases for you to test.
Explore Synthetic ScenariosFollow every run from request to outcome
Inspect traces, sessions, agent runs, retrieval, tools, timing, retries, scores, and the final result in one connected view.
Explore AI ObservabilitySee the patterns across all those runs
Understand what users want, how conversations feel, which failures repeat, what knowledge is missing, and what deserves attention next.
Explore Agent IntelligenceTurn quality into a check you can run again
BuilderCreate reusable evaluation criteria, score selected runs, review failed examples, and keep human review connected to the source evidence.
Explore EvaluatorsKnow where to start when something goes wrong
Bring the user goal, actual outcome, trace, and likely cause together. Review the next action and validate the change with the same situation.
Explore AI RemediationUnderstand who is struggling and why
GrowthReview user-level patterns, repeated friction, unresolved goals, and the sessions behind each signal when your plan and integration support them.
Explore End User Intelligence
Connect PRISM
Connect the app you already built
Use a verified SDK, framework, OpenTelemetry path, connector, import, or API.
- SDK
- PRISM SDK
- Standard
- OpenTelemetry
- Frameworks
- LangChain · LangGraph
- Import
- Supported historical activity
Every supported connector is available on every plan, including Free.
The artefact
What a month of this actually produces
Not a dashboard you are meant to check. A score with six weighted dimensions under it, every one of them traceable to the rules that moved it, and a delta against last month that somebody can be held to.
78/100
Reliability score
+6 vs May
8.4%
Failure rate
was 12.7%
74
Satisfaction proxy
was 65
1.2%
Guardrail trigger rate
was 1.8%
0
High-severity incidents
3 medium, resolved
Every dimension moved up. Improvement velocity moved most (+12) because five fixes shipped against two the month before — the score is measuring whether the team is getting faster, not just whether the agent is behaving.
- Task success & resolutionweight 25%76→82+6
KB fixes lifted completion on top intents
- Correctness & groundednessweight 20%72→79+7
Fewer stale-content answers after KB refresh
- User friction & satisfactionweight 15%65→74+9
Loops down; still the weakest dimension
- Stability & error-free executionweight 10%85→88+3
Timeout retry cut tool errors sharply
- Guardrails & policy adherenceweight 20%87→91+4
Zero high-severity events
- Improvement velocityweight 10%49→61+12
5 validated fixes vs 2 in May
Green at 85. The weights are fixed per client, stated in every report, and change only at quarter boundaries — a score whose weights move is a score you can flatter.
Figures from a sample FinVault reliability report. Design-partner data, synthetic and illustrative of real deliverables.
72 to 78 in a month, and 85 is Green. The two backlog items already in flight are projected to close that gap on their own.
KB remediation wave shipped · Jun 978
The marker is the remediation wave that shipped on June 9. An inflection with no cause named on it is a chart asking to be believed.
PRISM weekly score snapshots
Traffic up 23% over the quarter and completion up 3.5 points at the same time. Either number alone proves nothing; the pair is the only shape that means growth is producing better outcomes rather than more failures.
- 39.1K83.6%April
- 44.5K85.9%May
- 48.2K87.1%June
Traffic up 23% and completion up 3.5 points at the same time. Either number alone proves nothing; the pair is the only shape that means more usage is producing better outcomes rather than more failures.
PRISM session telemetry
The loop
48,210 sessions in, five validated changes out
The narrowing is the product. Anything that turns production traffic into alerts has made your week worse; this ends in a small number of changes that shipped, with a human signing off at every gate and a measurement afterwards proving each one worked.
4,050
Failures clustered
3,822
Root causes classified
14
Backlog items opened
9
Fixes proposed
7
Human approved
5
Shipped & validated
Human escalations avoided
Escalation rate fell 9.2% → 7.6% of 48,210 sessions = 771 avoided escalations
~154 support hours · ~$5,400
Engineering triage eliminated
Failure clustering + root-cause classification replaces manual log review
~48 engineering hours · ~$4,300
Completions recovered
Refund KB fix recovered ~380 sessions; refusal tuning adds ~120/month
Revenue-linked
~$9,700/month measurable value against $5,000/month program cost — ~1.9× program cost. Deliberately conservative: placeholder loaded rates, measured effects only, and revenue from recovered completions excluded entirely until the per-completion value is agreed with your finance team in week one.
Underneath all of it
One session, held together
Every number on this page comes from the same structure: a production session kept as one record with its intent, its state, its tool calls and its outcome still attached to each other. Split those into four systems and none of the analysis above is possible.
The unit of analysis. Not a log line, not a span, not a prompt — a session, with what the user wanted still attached to what they got.
Always on, not on request
Coverage is 100% of production sessions rather than a sample, which is the only reason a pattern can be counted instead of noticed. “214 sessions with this signature” is a sentence sampling cannot produce.
A human gate before anything ships
Knowledge and guardrail changes happen in-platform, prompt changes ship as versioned diffs with rollback, code changes ship as pull requests carrying their evidence. All three need explicit sign-off. PRISM never merges on its own.
Proof is a deliverable, not a tab
The month ends in a document: the score, the deltas, what shipped, what it moved, and the three decisions leadership has to make. Dashboards are the supporting evidence behind it.
Plan notes
Evaluator creation and management begin on Builder. End User Management and User Risk Profiles begin on Growth.
Start with one AI app
Connect a real workflow and find the first thing worth improving.