5 metrics to measure AI-generated answers' decision-making impact

Enterprise leaders increasingly rely on AI-generated answers to accelerate decision-making, but the critical question remains: how do you know if these systems actually improve outcomes? Measuring AI's impact on decision quality requires tracking specific, actionable metrics that go beyond simple adoption rates. The five core metrics—accuracy, relevance, coherence, helpfulness, and user trust—provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating whether AI-generated answers genuinely enhance business decisions. By systematically measuring these dimensions, organizations can quantify improvements in decision speed, quality, and confidence while identifying areas where AI systems need refinement. This approach transforms AI from a promising technology into a measurable driver of better business outcomes.

Glean: AI-powered answers driving better decisions

Glean delivers AI-powered enterprise search that fundamentally changes how knowledge workers access information and make decisions. Instead of forcing employees to hunt across disconnected systems, Glean unifies knowledge from over 100 applications and delivers context-aware answers directly within existing workflows. This AI for decision-making approach eliminates the productivity drain of context switching while dismantling the information silos that slow critical business processes.

The platform's architecture relies on retrieval augmented generation, which grounds every AI-generated answer in verified company data rather than generic training information. This ensures responses reflect your organization's specific policies, procedures, and institutional knowledge while maintaining compliance and security standards. When a product manager asks about customer feedback trends or a support engineer needs troubleshooting guidance, Glean surfaces answers anchored in actual company documents, tickets, and communications.

Organizations implementing Glean report measurable improvements across key decision-making indicators. Teams spend less time searching for information, support tickets resolve faster, and employees express higher confidence in the answers they receive. By establishing baseline metrics before deployment and tracking changes afterward, companies can quantify exactly how AI-powered answers improve decision quality and operational efficiency.

Accuracy: measuring correctness and reliability

Accuracy forms the foundation of trustworthy AI-generated answers because decisions based on incorrect information can lead to costly mistakes, compliance failures, and eroded confidence. In high-stakes environments like financial services, healthcare, or legal operations, even small accuracy gaps can trigger significant consequences.

Accuracy measures how often an AI response matches authoritative sources or expert answers. According to research on AI performance measurement, organizations should track the factual error rate—the percentage of responses containing incorrect information—alongside positive accuracy scores. For customer service workflows, this might mean comparing AI-generated troubleshooting steps against documented procedures. In fraud detection systems, it means measuring how often AI correctly identifies suspicious transactions.

Implementing accuracy measurement requires establishing ground truth benchmarks. Create a test set of questions with verified correct answers and regularly evaluate AI responses against these standards. Track accuracy rates across different content domains, user groups, and query types to identify patterns. A customer support AI might achieve 95% accuracy on product specification questions but only 78% on complex troubleshooting scenarios, revealing where additional training data or human oversight is needed.

Several technical metrics support accuracy assessment. Faithfulness scores, as outlined in Clarivate's evaluation framework, measure how closely AI-generated content corresponds to source documents. For text generation tasks, BLEU and ROUGE scores quantify similarity between AI outputs and reference texts. Organizations should display accuracy metrics in dashboards that track trends over time, making it easy to spot degradation and validate improvements after system updates.

Building AI reliability requires continuous monitoring. Establish accuracy thresholds for different use cases—perhaps 99% for compliance-related queries but 90% for general information requests—and trigger reviews when performance drops below acceptable levels. This systematic approach to measuring correctness ensures AI-generated answers consistently support decision quality improvement rather than introducing new risks.

Relevance: aligning answers with user needs

An accurate answer that fails to address the user's actual question wastes time and frustrates employees. Relevance measures whether AI-generated responses directly address user intent within the specific business context, ensuring the information provided enables rather than distracts.

Relevance captures the degree to which an AI response matches what the user actually needs to know. A sales representative asking "What's our discount policy for enterprise customers?" needs specific approval thresholds and process steps, not a general overview of all company discounts. The most relevant answer anticipates the user's workflow and provides exactly the information required for their next action.

Implementing relevance measurement typically involves rating scales that capture user judgment. Many organizations use a 1-5 relevance score where users evaluate how well each AI response addressed their specific need. According to guidance on AI evaluations, structured scoring rubrics help standardize these assessments:

<div class="overflow-scroll" role="region" aria-label="Data table"><table class="rich-text-table_component"><thead class="rich-text-table_head"><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">Score</th><th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">Definition</th><th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">User action</th></tr></thead><tbody class="rich-text-table_body"><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><td class="rich-text-table_cell">5</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Perfectly addresses the question with actionable information</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Immediately applies the answer</td></tr><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><td class="rich-text-table_cell">4</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Mostly relevant with minor gaps</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Uses answer with minimal additional searching</td></tr><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><td class="rich-text-table_cell">3</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Partially relevant but missing key details</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Requires supplementary research</td></tr><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><td class="rich-text-table_cell">2</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Tangentially related but doesn't answer the question</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Starts new search</td></tr><tr class="rich-text-table_row"><td class="rich-text-table_cell">1</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Completely irrelevant or off-topic</td><td class="rich-text-table_cell">Abandons AI system</td></tr></tbody></table></div>


Track relevance scores across query categories, user roles, and time periods to identify patterns. If marketing teams consistently rate AI response relevance higher than engineering teams, the system may need additional technical documentation or domain-specific training. Declining relevance scores over time signal AI drift, where model performance degrades as business context evolves.

User feedback loops optimize relevance continuously. When users rate responses poorly, capture their comments about what was missing or unhelpful. Analyze this qualitative data alongside quantitative scores to understand whether relevance issues stem from incomplete knowledge bases, poor query understanding, or misaligned ranking algorithms. Organizations that systematically improve AI response relevance see measurable increases in user satisfaction and reduced time spent searching for information.

Coherence: ensuring logical and clear responses

Coherence determines whether users can actually understand and act on AI-generated answers. Even accurate, relevant information loses value when presented in confusing, disjointed, or illogical formats. Measuring coherence ensures AI responses support effective decision-making through clear communication.

Coherence refers to the logical structure and narrative flow of AI-generated content. A coherent answer presents information in a sequence that makes sense, uses consistent terminology, maintains focus on the topic, and connects ideas smoothly. When an employee asks about expense reimbursement procedures, a coherent response walks through the process step-by-step rather than jumping between unrelated policy details.

Assessing coherence combines automated metrics with human evaluation. Perplexity scores, commonly used in generative AI evaluation, measure how predictable and natural text appears—lower perplexity indicates content that flows logically. Readability metrics like Flesch-Kincaid scores help ensure answers match the audience's comprehension level.

Human reviewers provide essential coherence assessment that automated metrics miss. Establish a review checklist that evaluates:

• Information is presented in logical order
• Transitions between points are smooth and clear
• Technical terms are used consistently
• The response maintains focus without tangents
• Conclusions follow logically from supporting details
• Formatting enhances rather than obscures meaning

Sample responses should be evaluated regularly across different query types and content domains. If AI-generated answers about technical specifications consistently score high on coherence while HR policy responses score low, the system may need better training on how to structure procedural information. Track coherence metrics alongside accuracy and relevance to understand whether comprehension issues stem from incorrect information or simply unclear presentation.

Organizations that prioritize coherence see higher engagement with AI-generated answers. When users can quickly understand and apply the information provided, they're more likely to trust the system and integrate it into their decision-making workflows. Clear, logically structured responses reduce the cognitive load of processing information, enabling faster and more confident decisions.

Helpfulness: supporting effective user action

Helpfulness represents the ultimate measure of AI-generated answers' value—whether the response actually enables users to accomplish their goals and make better decisions. An answer can be accurate, relevant, and coherent yet still fail to help if it doesn't provide actionable guidance.

Helpfulness measures the extent to which an AI-generated answer moves users closer to completing their task or making their decision. This goes beyond information delivery to assess practical utility in real business scenarios. When a customer service agent receives an AI-generated answer about product returns, helpfulness depends on whether that answer includes the specific steps, system commands, and exception handling necessary to actually process the return.

Implementing helpfulness measurement requires understanding user workflows and success criteria. Prompt users to rate answers on a 1-5 scale specifically focused on utility: "Did this answer help you complete your task or make your decision?" According to research on AI evaluation methods, this single question often correlates more strongly with business outcomes than complex multi-dimensional rubrics.

Connect helpfulness ratings to downstream performance metrics that demonstrate business impact:

• Task completion rates before and after receiving AI-generated answers
• Time-to-resolution for support tickets where agents used AI assistance
• Decision confidence scores from users who consulted AI-generated information
• Follow-up question frequency, where lower rates suggest the initial answer was sufficiently helpful
• Abandonment rates when users exit without taking action after viewing AI responses

Track these metrics across different use cases to identify where AI-generated answers deliver the most value. Sales teams might find AI-assisted decision-making particularly helpful for pricing negotiations, while engineering teams benefit most from troubleshooting guidance. Understanding these patterns enables targeted improvements that maximize AI utility for specific workflows.

Qualitative feedback enriches helpfulness assessment. When users rate answers as unhelpful, ask what was missing or what would have made the response more useful. Common themes often emerge: users need more specific examples, clearer action steps, links to relevant tools, or context about when different approaches apply. Addressing these gaps systematically transforms AI from an information source into a genuine decision support system.

User trust: building confidence through consistent value

User trust determines whether AI-generated answers become integral to decision-making or remain underutilized technology. Without trust, employees will continue using familiar but less efficient methods, negating AI's potential impact. Measuring and building trust requires understanding both rational confidence in system performance and emotional comfort with AI-assisted decisions.

User trust reflects the confidence employees have in AI-generated answers' accuracy, reliability, and utility based on consistent positive experiences. Trust builds gradually as users verify that AI responses prove helpful, accurate, and aligned with their needs. It erodes quickly when systems provide incorrect information, irrelevant answers, or fail to deliver promised value.

Measuring trust combines behavioral signals with direct sentiment assessment. Track repeat usage rates as a primary trust indicator—employees who trust AI-generated answers return to the system regularly and expand their use to new scenarios. According to research on measuring AI impact, adoption patterns reveal trust levels more reliably than self-reported confidence scores.

<div class="overflow-scroll" role="region" aria-label="AI trust indicators and measurement approaches">
 <table class="rich-text-table_component">
   <thead class="rich-text-table_head">
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">Trust indicator</th>
       <th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">Measurement approach</th>
       <th class="rich-text-table_header" scope="col">Positive trend</th>
     </tr>
   </thead>
   <tbody class="rich-text-table_body">
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Repeat usage rate</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Percentage of users returning within 7 days</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Increasing over time</td>
     </tr>
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Query diversity</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Number of different question types per user</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Expanding scope</td>
     </tr>
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Response acceptance</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Percentage of AI answers used without modification</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Above 70%</td>
     </tr>
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Voluntary adoption</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Users choosing AI over alternatives</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Growing organically</td>
     </tr>
     <tr class="rich-text-table_row">
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Recommendation rate</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Net Promoter Score for AI system</td>
       <td class="rich-text-table_cell">Positive and rising</td>
     </tr>
   </tbody>
 </table>
</div>

‍

Complement behavioral metrics with direct sentiment measurement. Deploy brief in-app surveys asking users to rate their confidence in AI-generated answers on a 5-point scale. Track changes in sentiment over time, particularly after system updates or training data improvements. Analyze qualitative comments to understand specific trust factors—users might trust AI for factual lookups but not strategic recommendations, revealing opportunities for targeted capability building.

Transparency strengthens user confidence in AI. When Glean surfaces answers, it shows the source documents and explains how information was retrieved. This visibility enables users to verify responses and understand system reasoning, building rational trust through verifiable performance rather than requiring blind faith in algorithmic outputs.

Address trust erosion immediately when it occurs. If accuracy drops or users report unhelpful responses, acknowledge the issue, explain corrective actions, and demonstrate improvement through updated metrics. Organizations that treat trust as a measurable asset requiring continuous investment see sustained AI adoption and deeper integration into critical decision-making processes.

Building long-term trust requires proving value consistently across diverse scenarios and user groups. As employees experience AI-generated answers that save time, improve decision quality, and reduce uncertainty, trust compounds. This virtuous cycle transforms AI from a tool people use occasionally into an essential decision support system they rely on daily.

Frequently asked questions

What are the key metrics to assess AI-generated answers' impact on decisions?

The five essential metrics are accuracy, relevance, coherence, helpfulness, and user trust. Accuracy measures factual correctness, relevance assesses alignment with user needs, coherence evaluates logical clarity, helpfulness determines practical utility, and user trust captures sustained confidence in the system. Together, these metrics provide a comprehensive view of whether AI-generated answers genuinely improve decision quality and business outcomes.

How can I measure the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated answers?

Establish ground truth benchmarks by creating test questions with verified correct answers, then regularly evaluate AI responses against these standards. Track factual error rates, faithfulness scores that measure correspondence to source documents, and accuracy percentages across different content domains. Display these metrics in dashboards that reveal trends over time, enabling you to identify degradation quickly and validate improvements after system updates.

How does AI-driven decision-making affect business performance?

AI-driven decision-making typically improves business performance by accelerating information retrieval, reducing errors, and enabling more confident decisions. Organizations implementing AI-powered answer systems like Glean report measurable gains in task completion speed, support ticket resolution rates, and employee productivity. The key is establishing baseline metrics before AI deployment, then tracking changes in decision speed, quality, and outcomes to quantify the specific performance improvements in your environment.

What indicates user trust in AI-generated responses?

User trust manifests through behavioral patterns and direct sentiment. High trust appears in repeat usage rates, expanding query diversity, voluntary adoption without mandates, and positive recommendation scores. Track how often employees return to AI systems, whether they apply answers without verification, and if adoption grows organically across teams. Complement these behavioral signals with periodic surveys measuring confidence levels and analyzing qualitative feedback about specific trust factors.

How do I compare AI-supported decisions to traditional approaches?

Establish comparison frameworks that measure the same outcomes before and after AI implementation. Track decision speed, accuracy, user satisfaction, and business results for both traditional methods and AI-assisted approaches. For example, measure average time-to-resolution for support tickets handled with and without AI assistance, or compare sales cycle length for deals where representatives used AI-generated insights versus those who didn't. This controlled comparison quantifies AI's incremental value while accounting for other variables affecting performance.

‍