Assessing RAG work in finance, healthcare and manufacturing

Assessing RAG in finance, healthcare and manufacturing starts with the user's task, applicable evidence and consequences of error. An industry label, citation link or daily use cannot independently establish readiness.

The three scenarios below are planning references, not verified client-delivery records. The comparison identifies conditions and evidence to establish; it provides no before-and-after outcomes, deployment timetable or performance guarantee.

What to assess for each task

Agree test material, owners and criteria for each task before development scope. A score from another task cannot establish that this one is ready for use.

Finance: match evidence to the relevant period

For a hypothetical policy-query summary, establish the contract, product, endorsements and relevant period. Older documents are not necessarily inapplicable: historical claims may require terms effective at that time. Source-status and date rules need responsible-owner confirmation.

Retain passages, versions, conditions and unresolved questions. A citation still needs checking for actual support. Refer missing or conflicting evidence to designated staff rather than independently inferring coverage or payment.

The FSC's 2024 AI guidelines are administrative, nonbinding risk guidance, considering customer impact, personal data, autonomy and remedies. They do not approve a RAG product or supply one passing score.

Healthcare: assess intended use beyond citations

Administrative preparation, professional information lookup and diagnostic or treatment decisions have different intended uses. A source link helps review; it does not establish patient applicability, clinical-workflow acceptance or medical-device clearance.

Before medical or health-data processing, establish the actual basis, purpose, recipients and safeguards with responsible teams. Taiwan's PDPA sets conditions for such processing. RAG or de-identification labels do not establish blanket permission.

For intended diagnostic or treatment functions, separately assess function, purpose and risk using TFDA's attribute guidance, seeking authority clarification where necessary. The existing healthcare offering concerns administrative and reviewed preparation, not an autonomous-diagnosis promise.

Manufacturing: confirm equipment and approved procedures

For a hypothetical equipment-error query, connect the model, version and applicable procedure for designated technicians to check. Chat, oral experience and service tickets require authorized use and responsible-team validation.

Material about similar equipment does not establish that its steps may be followed. Flag missing applicable procedures and arrange takeover rather than substituting model-completed instructions for safety rules.

Assess quality, use and cost separately

Anthropic's hallucination controls do not eliminate errors through supplied material or citation checks. Record source applicability, retrieval completeness, answer support, access, revisions and failure handling separately.

Compare preparation, waiting, review, rework and takeover workload alongside full development and operating costs. Adoption records use, not quality, formal acceptance or cash benefit. NIST's GenAI risk profile provides a voluntary assessment reference, not regulatory certification.

Bring representative questions, permitted sources and owners when discussing an existing RAG knowledge system. Those conditions and evidence determine what the first phase should establish.