According to VentureBeat, Databricks has discovered through customer deployments that the main blocker for enterprise AI isn’t model intelligence but organizational alignment on quality standards. Their Judge Builder framework, first deployed earlier this year with Agent Bricks technology, now includes structured workshops addressing three core challenges: stakeholder agreement on criteria, capturing domain expertise from limited experts, and scaling evaluation systems. Multiple customers who’ve gone through these workshops have become seven-figure GenAI spenders at Databricks, with one customer creating more than a dozen judges after their initial session. Chief AI Scientist Jonathan Frankle revealed that teams can create robust judges from just 20-30 well-chosen examples in as little as three hours, achieving inter-rater reliability scores as high as 0.6 compared to typical external services scoring 0.3.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
<h2 id="the-ouroboros-problem“>The Snake Eating Its Own Tail
Here’s the thing about AI evaluation: you quickly run into what Databricks calls the “Ouroboros problem.” That’s the ancient symbol of a snake eating its own tail, and it perfectly captures the circular logic of using AI to evaluate AI. If your judge is also an AI system, how do you know the judge itself is any good? It’s like trying to measure a ruler with another ruler—you need some external reference point.
Databricks’ solution is measuring “distance to human expert ground truth” as the primary scoring function. Basically, they minimize the gap between how an AI judge scores outputs versus how actual human experts would score them. This turns judges into scalable proxies for human evaluation rather than just another layer of AI complexity. And honestly, this approach makes way more sense than traditional guardrails or single-metric checks that treat all quality as binary.
Where Companies Actually Get Stuck
The biggest revelation from Databricks’ customer work? Your experts don’t agree as much as you think they do. Frankle put it perfectly: “The hardest part is getting an idea out of a person’s brain and into something explicit. And the harder part is that companies are not one brain, but many brains.”
Think about it—a customer service response might be factually correct but use the wrong tone. A financial summary could be comprehensive but too technical. Different experts will rate the same output completely differently until you force alignment. One customer had three experts give ratings of 1, 5, and neutral for the same output before realizing they were interpreting the criteria differently.
The fix is surprisingly simple: batched annotation with inter-rater reliability checks. Teams annotate examples in small groups and measure agreement before proceeding. This catches misalignment early and creates cleaner training data. Companies using this approach achieve those 0.6 reliability scores compared to the 0.3 you typically get from external annotation services.
What Actually Works in Practice
So how do you build judges that actually help rather than just creating more complexity? First, break down vague criteria into specific judges. Instead of one judge evaluating whether something is “relevant, factual and concise,” create three separate judges. This granularity matters because a failing “overall quality” score tells you something’s wrong but not what to fix.
Second—and this is crucial—you need way fewer examples than you think. Teams can create robust judges from just 20-30 well-chosen edge cases. The key is selecting examples that expose disagreement rather than obvious cases where everyone agrees. As research scientist Pallavi Koppol noted, “We’re able to run this process with some teams in as little as three hours.”
Third, combine top-down requirements with bottom-up discovery. One customer built a judge for correctness but discovered through data that correct responses almost always cited the top two retrieval results. That insight became a new production-friendly judge that could proxy for correctness without requiring ground-truth labels.
Beyond Pilots to Real Business Impact
What’s fascinating is how this changes what companies are willing to attempt. Frankle shared that customers who previously hesitated to use advanced techniques like reinforcement learning now feel confident deploying them because they can actually measure whether improvements occurred. Why spend money and energy on reinforcement learning if you don’t know whether it made a difference?
The most successful teams treat judges not as one-time artifacts but as evolving assets. They schedule regular reviews using production data because new failure modes will emerge as systems evolve. And your judge portfolio should evolve with them.
Basically, once you have a judge that represents your human taste in an empirical form you can query anytime, you can use it in thousands of ways to measure or improve your AI systems. It becomes the foundation that lets you move from cautious experimentation to confident deployment at scale. And isn’t that what everyone’s actually trying to achieve?
