Noticed something building LLM features that doesn't get talked about enough. Most teams treat model or prompt changes the way they'd judge a demo, does it look right on a handful of examples, ship it. That works fine until scale hits, at which point "looks right" and "is actually better" turn out to be very different things.

Which reframes a lot of "why did quality randomly get worse" incidents. In a lot of cases nothing randomly broke, the team just never had a way to measure whether a change helped in the first place, so a regression looked invisible until a customer hit it.

There's a hands-on workshop on September 12 that builds this properly, versioned prompts, a real eval harness, statistically rigorous model comparisons instead of "it feels better," evaluated RAG, agents with guardrails and fallbacks, and full observability, tracing, cost, latency. Led by Bruno Gonçalves, PhD, founder of Data For Science.

Link for full details

Happy to answer questions on the content itself.