← Home
TWIML · May 7, 2026 · 53m

How to Find the Agent Failures Your Evals Miss

Scott Clark, co-founder and CEO of Distributional, discusses how teams can reliably operate and improve complex LLM systems and agents in production. The episode explores a Maslow's hierarchy of observability framework, real-world production failures that standard evals miss (like lazy tool-use hallucinations), and how vector fingerprinting of traces enables clustering to uncover emergent behaviors. Clark explains how online analytics feed a data flywheel to generate evals, guardrails, and training data, and why adaptive approaches are essential for non-stationary models.

This summary was generated from show notes and public descriptions, not from a full transcript review. Details may contain inaccuracies.

Novel

Lazy Tool-Use Hallucinations
Agents can hallucinate tool-use by claiming to call tools without actually executing them — a failure pattern that standard evals miss entirely.

Highlights

Maslow's Hierarchy of Observability
Scott introduces a three-tier observability framework: telemetry (logging), monitoring (known signal tracking), and online analytics (discovering unknown unknowns).
Vector Fingerprinting for Failure Clustering
Mapping execution traces into vector fingerprints enables unsupervised clustering to discover patterns across similar failures without predefined categories.
The Analytics Data Flywheel
Production analytics feed a continuous loop: observability uncovers failures → failures generate new evals → evals create guardrails and training data → better models prevent future failures.
Online, Adaptive Observability for Non-Stationary Systems
LLM systems are non-stationary — behavior drifts over time with model updates, user patterns, and emerging edge cases — requiring adaptive observability that evolves rather than static monitoring.

Misc

"Lazy" tool-use hallucinations — agents claiming to use tools without actually calling them — are a production failure pattern that standard evals completely miss
Vector fingerprints of traces can cluster similar failures, revealing emergent behaviors that weren't explicitly tested
The data flywheel: production analytics → failure discovery → new evals → guardrails → training data → better models
Was this useful?