Most support tickets are simple, but a few need deep reasoning. Quality, cost and latency all matter. Which model strategy do you recommend?
Why A is the answer
Route by complexity, with a fast tier by default and a stronger tier for hard cases
Routing puts spending where it changes the result. One tier for everything either overpays on simple work or fails on hard work, and asking people to choose on each reply is not a strategy.
In detail
- Traffic varies in difficulty, so one tier cannot suit it all.
- Routing spends money where it changes the result: a fast tier by default, and a stronger one for hard cases.
- Measure quality on each route, because a router can send hard cases the wrong way.
Use case
An illustrative scenario, not a real incident.
A telecom sends password resets to a fast tier and contract disputes to a stronger one. Most tickets cost little, and the hard ones still get careful answers.
See it in different ways
flowchart LR
A["Request"] --> B{"Complexity check"}
B -->|"Simple"| C["Fast model"]
B -->|"Hard"| D["Most capable model"]
C --> E{"Validation passes?"}
E -->|No| D
E -->|Yes| F["Answer"]sequenceDiagram
participant U as Request
participant F as Fast model
participant V as Validation
participant S as Stronger model
U->>F: Handle first
F->>V: Check the output
alt Fails validation
V->>S: Escalate
else Passes
V-->>U: Return the answer
endflowchart TD
Q{"How hard is the ticket?"}
Q -->|"Simple"| A0["Fast tier"]
Q -->|"Needs deep reasoning"| A1["Stronger tier"]Key point: Spend where it changes the result.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Let each support agent choose a model from a dropdown on every reply
- Asking people to choose for each reply is slow and inconsistent.
- C. Use the largest model everywhere, so quality never becomes a question
- This overpays on simple tickets, and every reply gets slower.
- D. Use the smallest model everywhere and let staff fix the harder replies
- This fails on the hard cases and moves the cost to staff.

