A Practical Quality Assurance Framework for Large Language Model Applications: Evaluation Metrics, Failure Modes, and Testing Strategies

Abstract:The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created a critical need for systematic quality assurance. Unlike traditional software testing, LLM outputs are non-deterministic and require multi-dimensional human evaluation. This practitioner paper proposes a lightweight, actionable QA framework designed for AI Quality Analysts. The framework evaluates responses across five dimensions: (1) Factual Accuracy, (2) Instruction Following, (3) Completeness & Relevance, (4) Safety, Bias & Privacy, and (5) Linguistic Quality. We define 18 recurring failure modes observed in production LLM systems, including hallucinated citations, partial compliance, over-refusal, stereotype reinforcement, and contradictory statements. We present a 5-point anchored rubric and a defect triage process using severity levels (High/Medium/Low/N/A) and a standardized bug log format. The framework was empirically validated on 4 diverse test cases: (a) summarization of a complex live news blog, (b) structured JSON generation for breakfast ideas, (c) bias-free job description generation for a nurse, and (d) mathematical reasoning with steps. Results showed a 25% defect rate, with primary failure mode being hallucination on unverified live news (Medium severity), while structured, bias, and reasoning tests passed perfectly (N/A severity). This framework enables QA teams to bring structured, repeatable quality practices to LLM evaluation without requiring large-scale compute. All evaluation templates are provided as supplementary material for immediate use in industry QA workflows. Keywords: AI Quality Assurance, LLM Evaluation, Data Quality, Hallucination Detection, Responsible AI, Model Validation, Human Evaluation, AI Quality Analyst Author: Neil George, Independent ResearcherVersion: v1.0 - Initial practitioner release for portfolio and community feedbackLicense: CC-BY 4.0Supplementary Files: LLM_QA_Evaluation_Template_4_Tests.xlsx contains 4 scored test cases with evidence.Intended Use: Portfolio for AI Quality Analyst role and open-source QA template.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-07-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21551678
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Practical Quality Assurance Framework for Large Language Model Applications: Evaluation Metrics, Failure Modes, and Testing Strategies

Neil George Kuriakose
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

A Practical Quality Assurance Framework for Large Language Model Applications: Evaluation Metrics, Failure Modes, and Testing Strategies

Neil George Kuriakose
article en

Abstract

Abstract:The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created a critical need for systematic quality assurance. Unlike traditional software testing, LLM outputs are non-deterministic and require multi-dimensional human evaluation. This practitioner paper proposes a lightweight, actionable QA framework designed for AI Quality Analysts. The framework evaluates responses across five dimensions: (1) Factual Accuracy, (2) Instruction Following, (3) Completeness & Relevance, (4) Safety, Bias & Privacy, and (5) Linguistic Quality. We define 18 recurring failure modes observed in production LLM systems, including hallucinated citations, partial compliance, over-refusal, stereotype reinforcement, and contradictory statements. We present a 5-point anchored rubric and a defect triage process using severity levels (High/Medium/Low/N/A) and a standardized bug log format. The framework was empirically validated on 4 diverse test cases: (a) summarization of a complex live news blog, (b) structured JSON generation for breakfast ideas, (c) bias-free job description generation for a nurse, and (d) mathematical reasoning with steps. Results showed a 25% defect rate, with primary failure mode being hallucination on unverified live news (Medium severity), while structured, bias, and reasoning tests passed perfectly (N/A severity). This framework enables QA teams to bring structured, repeatable quality practices to LLM evaluation without requiring large-scale compute. All evaluation templates are provided as supplementary material for immediate use in industry QA workflows. Keywords: AI Quality Assurance, LLM Evaluation, Data Quality, Hallucination Detection, Responsible AI, Model Validation, Human Evaluation, AI Quality Analyst Author: Neil George, Independent ResearcherVersion: v1.0 - Initial practitioner release for portfolio and community feedbackLicense: CC-BY 4.0Supplementary Files: LLM_QA_Evaluation_Template_4_Tests.xlsx contains 4 scored test cases with evidence.Intended Use: Portfolio for AI Quality Analyst role and open-source QA template.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Practical Quality Assurance Framework for Large Language Model Applications: Evaluation Metrics, Failure Modes, and Testing Strategies — Neil George Kuriakose · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS