Your RAG answers sound confident but cite content that does not exist in the source. Which evaluation targets this?
Why A is the answer
Groundedness evaluation against the retrieved content
Groundedness checks whether the answer is supported by the source. A fluent answer can still be fabricated.
In detail
- Groundedness checks whether answers are supported by the retrieved content.
- Run it on a test set before release.
Use case
An illustrative scenario, not a real incident.
A RAG bot quotes a policy that does not exist. A groundedness evaluation scores each answer against the retrieved content and flags it.
See it in different ways
flowchart TD A["Foundry evaluators"] --> B["General: coherence, fluency"] A --> C["RAG: groundedness, relevance"] A --> D["Safety: hate, violence, protected material"] A --> E["Agents: tool call accuracy, task completion"]
mindmap
root((Evaluators))
Quality
Relevance
Coherence
Fluency
RAG
Groundedness
Agents
Tool call accuracy
Safety
Violence
Hate and unfairness
Protected materialsflowchart LR S0["Question"] --> S1["Retrieved content"] --> S2["Answer"] --> S3["Groundedness score"]
Key point: Groundedness checks answers against sources.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Latency percentile analysis across the retrieval and generation steps
- Latency measures speed.
- C. Token count analysis per request and per user
- Token counts measure size.
- D. Fluency scoring on a sample of production answers
- A fluent answer can still be invented.

