Pilot, PoC, and Verification Methods of Robo Claw in Major Food Service Companies
Once the requirements are finalized, construct a pilot for one brand, one group of stores, one task, and one connection scope, verify both normal and abnormal cases, and then determine whether to transition to production.
It is important to narrow the scope of a pilot. Limit it to one brand, one group of stores, one task, and one connection scope, and make sure to verify abnormal scenarios such as misclassification, incorrect summarization, incorrect translation, incorrect transmission, misrecognition of menu/price information, missing allergy information, insufficient permissions, duplicate execution, prompt injection, and external API failures. Only after confirming that human approval, stop, rollback, and switch to manual operation function as designed can you proceed to deciding on production transition.
Who This Is For
Who This Is For
Targets are the information systems department, store operations managers, and quality/food safety managers who confirmed requirements in the Refine STEP.
What You'll Decide
What You'll Decide in This Step
In the Build & Validate STEP, define the scope of the pilot, build Agent, Skill, and Tool Policy, conduct normal and abnormal tests, and decide whether to move to production.
Pilot Scope
Scope of the Pilot
It is recommended to conduct the Pilot with a limited scope according to the following units.
1 brand
Even if multiple brands are being operated, verification will first be limited to a single brand.
One group of stores
Rather than all stores, a group of several stores with different characteristics will be targeted.
One business process
Limit the verification to the one business process decided in Discover; do not verify multiple business processes simultaneously.
One connection range
Limit the connected systems to a minimum to make it easier to verify permissions and approval flows.
Method
Implementation Steps
1. Build the Pilot Environment
Build Agents, Skills, and Tools with test data, without using actual customer or reservation data.
2. Implement Tool Policy
Implement the Allow/Deny scope defined in Refine as a Tool Policy.
3. Test normal scenario
Verify whether expected classification, summarization, and draft are generated for the assumed input.
4. Test abnormal scenarios
Verifies misclassification, incorrect summarization, incorrect translation, incorrect sending, misrecognition of menu/price information, missing allergy information, insufficient authority, double execution, Prompt Injection, and external API failures.
5. Confirm human approval flow
Check whether human verification and approval function properly for operations that require approval.
6. Confirm stop, rollback, and switch to manual operation.
Verify whether procedures to stop processing, roll back, and switch to manual operation in case of abnormalities function properly.
7. Make a judgment based on the production migration criteria
Determine whether migration to production is possible according to the pre-established Go/No-Go criteria.
Data & Systems
Data and Systems Used
Human-in-the-loop
Where Human Approval Is Required
- The test personnel confirm and approve whether the menu/price change proposals and daily report summaries generated in the Pilot can be reflected.
- The settings of the Tool Policy are reviewed by the information systems department, store operations manager, and food safety manager.
- The responsible person decides on the feasibility of moving to production based on pre-established judgment criteria
Measurement
KPI
Pass rate of test scenarios
The proportion of passed normal and abnormal scenarios
Number of occurrences of misclassification and incorrect sending.
Number of incorrect operations or duplicate processes detected during the Pilot period
User acceptance evaluation
Evaluation of usability and business suitability by actual users
Pitfalls
Common Pitfalls
Judged as pass with normal cases only
If you skip verification of abnormal cases, the behavior of the reservation system during a failure in production will be unexpected.
Testing with actual customer and allergy data in production.
Using actual customer information or allergy information from the verification stage increases the risk of incorrect sending and information leakage.
Not preparing rollback procedures
Without procedures to revert when problems occur, recovery takes time and impacts customer response
Go / No-Go Criteria
Checklist for production migration decision
- All normal scenario tests have passed
- The abnormal scenario (misclassification, incorrect sending, missing allergy information, double execution, Prompt Injection, external API failures) has been verified.
- Human approval flow functions as designed
- Rollback procedures are established and actual rollback has been confirmed
- Confirmed that operations outside of permissions are rejected
- User acceptance tests have resolved practical issues
- Procedures for switching to manual operation in case of failure are established.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the approximate duration of the Pilot period?
It varies depending on the target operations and the complexity of reservation management and POS integration. Since a uniform period cannot be presented, please consult individually based on the target scope.
Is it possible to verify without using actual customer data?
] Yes, it is possible. We recommend preparing test data that mimics real data and conducting it in a verification environment that does not contain confidential information.
What happens if a Pilot fails?
Review the Refine requirements and Tool Policy, and conduct the Pilot again. It is recommended to continue verification until the standards are met without forcing the transition to production.
Shall we organize the Pilot design and verification together?
The scope, test scenarios, and Go/No-Go criteria can be concretized through discussions in the formal LP.