Make any LLM measurably more accurate on any written data. VERITROOPER catches the confident wrong answers, shows your team exactly where and why, and hands them the fixes — every contested verdict cross-vendor verified.
| Data Set | Baseline (Vanilla-RAG) | Audited (Model + VERITROOPER) | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| US Tax Code (Qwen 2.5 72B) | 86.76% | 98.19% | +11.43 |
| OSHA Safety (Claude Opus 4.8) | 93.88% | 99.90% | +6.02 |
| FDA Drug Labels (Claude Opus 4.8) | 94.96% | 100.00% | +5.04 |
| AI Model | Baseline (Vanilla-RAG) | Audited (Model + VERITROOPER) | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen 2.5 72B | 86.76% | 98.19% | +11.43 |
| Qwen 2.5 7B (runs on a laptop) | 86.58% | 96.67% | +10.09 |
| GPT-5.5 | 93.04% | 99.70% | +6.66 |
| Llama 3.1 70B | 87.69% | 97.70% | +10.01 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 92.51% | 98.68% | +6.17 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 93.99% | 99.40% | +5.41 |
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 94.36% | 100.00% | +5.64 |
| What you get from… | Output |
|---|---|
| Hallucination scorers (HHEM, Lynx) | A flag: this answer is suspect |
| RAG metric libraries (Ragas, Tonic Validate) | A number: faithfulness, relevance |
| Eval platforms (LangSmith, Braintrust, HELM) | A leaderboard or trace dump |
| VERITROOPER | Per-question verdict + failure category + evidence + plain-English fix list |
| Subject under test | Primary verifier | Tiebreaker (3rd vendor) |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
| GPT-5.5 | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.8 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.5 |
| EU AI Act requirement | What VERITROOPER generates |
|---|---|
| Accuracy & robustness (Art. 15) | Declared accuracy / robustness test report |
| Technical documentation (Annex IV §2(g)) | Drop-in testing & validation record |
| Post-market monitoring (Art. 72) | Recurring re-audit & accuracy-drift report |
| Human oversight (Art. 14) | Dated, signed human-review audit trail |
| Data gaps & representativeness (Art. 10) | Per-category performance-gap diagnostic |
A result is only worth as much as the process behind it. Every step that produces one is built to be defensible — to your auditors, your buyers, and your own engineers: independent cross-vendor verification, scoring that rounds against us, built-in hallucination traps, every failure shown in full, tamper-evident sign-off. Integrity here isn’t a claim — it’s the mechanism.
Don’t take our word for it.
We didn’t measure this once and call it proof. VERITROOPER has been run end-to-end across four unrelated regulated worlds — U.S. tax code, OSHA workplace-safety regulation, FDA drug labeling, and SEC 10-K financial filings — each the same 1,000-question audit, the same seven models (a 7B on a gaming GPU up to flagship frontier), the same cross-vendor verification. One domain could be luck; four behaving the same way is a pattern. And the numbers are your model’s — VERITROOPER carries no score of its own, it inherits the model’s floor and ceiling. Frontier models land near-perfect on all three; the weaker the model, the more accuracy the audit recovers. Llama 3.1 70B’s honest 77.84 on OSHA is the proof, not an outlier — a real audit has to be able to return a low number when the model earns one.
| Model | Baseline | Audited | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 94.36 | 100.00 | +5.64 |
| GPT-5.5 | 93.04 | 99.70 | +6.66 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 93.99 | 99.40 | +5.41 |
| Qwen 2.5 72B | 86.76 | 98.19 | +11.43 |
| Llama 3.1 70B | 87.69 | 97.70 | +10.01 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 92.51 | 98.68 | +6.17 |
| Qwen 2.5 7B | 86.58 | 96.67 | +10.09 |
| Model | Baseline | Audited | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 93.88 | 99.90 | +6.02 |
| GPT-5.5 | 93.85 | 99.80 | +5.95 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 92.79 | 99.60 | +6.81 |
| Qwen 2.5 72B | 92.75 | 99.60 | +6.85 |
| Llama 3.1 70B | 63.54 | 77.84 | +14.30 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 88.35 | 98.69 | +10.34 |
| Qwen 2.5 7B | 87.94 | 97.29 | +9.35 |
| Model | Baseline | Audited | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 94.96 | 100.00 | +5.04 |
| GPT-5.5 | 94.47 | 99.90 | +5.43 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 93.60 | 99.70 | +6.10 |
| Qwen 2.5 72B | 93.13 | 99.49 | +6.36 |
| Llama 3.1 70B | 64.84 | 80.85 | +16.01 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 91.29 | 98.99 | +7.70 |
| Qwen 2.5 7B | 89.09 | 95.66 | +6.57 |
| Model | Baseline | Audited | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 89.67 | 99.18 | +9.51 |
| GPT-5.5 | 87.53 | 99.08 | +11.55 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 90.12 | 99.09 | +8.97 |
| Qwen 2.5 72B | 90.85 | 96.64 | +5.79 |
| Llama 3.1 70B | 86.75 | 97.69 | +10.94 |
| Gemma 3 27B | 81.67 | 95.67 | +14.00 |
| Qwen 2.5 7B | 87.12 | 91.66 | +4.54 |
Baseline = the model with vanilla-RAG retrieval (BM25 top-5), the way real deployments serve. Audited = the same model’s same answers, re-measured against the correct source evidence, every contested verdict verified by a different vendor’s model. Δ = the accuracy your model is leaving on the table — every point of it traced to a specific question and root cause your team can fix. Every figure reproducible from timestamped logs.
Reproducibility is the line between a measurement and a guess. So we ran the exact same audit ten times in a row — same 238 questions, same model, two servers side by side. Here is every run, untouched.
| Run | Audited | Core check |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 97.06% | 97.48% |
| 2 | 97.48% | 97.48% |
| 3 | 97.06% | 97.48% |
| 4 | 97.05% | 97.48% |
| 5 | 97.03% | 97.48% |
| 6 | 97.05% | 97.48% |
| 7 | 97.03% | 97.48% |
| 8 | 97.48% | 97.48% |
| 9 | 97.46% | 97.48% |
| 10 | 97.05% | 97.48% |
| Across all ten | |
|---|---|
| Core check | Same to the decimal |
| Audited score | 97.0–97.5% |
| Best vs. worst run | Under half a point |
| Times it “drifted” | Never meaningfully |
Core check is the deterministic stage that turns the model’s wording into a clean pass/fail — it came back to the exact same number all ten times. The full audited score rides on top of it and barely moves. That last sliver of wiggle is honest: our auditors are themselves AI models, and no AI is perfect every single time — that’s the whole reason this product exists. The architecture holds even its own AI parts to the same accurate answer, again and again.
Raw data in, detailed after-action out. VERITROOPER's safety parachute pinpoints where your LLM fails on your data — in plain English you can hand to an engineer. Hover a stage.
Point VERITROOPER at anything written down — tax code, safety regs, rulebooks, financial filings. It ingests PDF, Word, HTML, CSV, JSON, plain text, and even live databases (SQLite, SQL dumps, DBF), then chunks and parses automatically. (Text-layer documents — it reads the text, it doesn’t OCR scanned images.)
Local or cloud, 7B to frontier, any vendor. Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama, Qwen — plug in what you've got. The baseline runs the model with vanilla-RAG retrieval — production-style, so the audit measures what your real deployment actually does, not a stripped-down LLM. The audit then re-measures the same model against the correct source evidence with cross-vendor verification — so the Δ is the recoverable accuracy gap, and exactly where it's lost. Audit, not serving uplift.
VERITROOPER generates the question set from your data, with ground truth locked in — spanning calculation, conditional, precision, cross-reference, exception, cause-effect, and deliberate unanswerable “trap” questions. Calc-verification, evidence grounding, and fabrication protection are handled by the front-end modules — every question is audited before the LLM ever sees it.
We run the target LLM two ways: baseline alone, and baseline plus VERITROOPER's verification layer. Head-to-head on identical questions, scored identically.
Any answer not 100% correct gets routed to the doctors — a team of diagnostic specialists, each tuned for a different type of failure or question type. General reasoning, refusals, ambiguity, and so on.
Each specialist returns structured findings on the failures they handled — verdict, evidence, category, and calibration notes. Every entry is reproducible from the timestamped log.
The Reporter takes the Doctor findings and writes a plain-English after-action — what failed, why, what category, what to fix. Recommendations come from your failure data: your model, your dataset, your evidence trail. Not generic AI advice. Hand it to an engineer — usable data they can act on immediately.
VERITROOPER makes any LLM measurably more accurate on any written material — and proves exactly how. You hand it a data set — tax code, safety regulations, drug labeling, financial filings, gaming rules, anything written down — and it generates a question set with verified ground truth, then runs the model two ways: once on realistic retrieval (the baseline) and once with the correct source evidence in front of it (the audit). The gap between them is the accuracy your model is leaving on the table. Failures are routed to specialist diagnostic modules, and every contested verdict is confirmed by an independent cross-vendor verifier that can override it — the model under test never gets the final say on its own answers. The run ends in a plain-English report on what the model got wrong, why, and exactly what to fix to recover it.
On regulated material it does what naive retrieval can’t: when a question depends on a cross-referenced section, the pipeline pulls that referenced section’s text into the evidence — multi-hop resolution the baseline can’t do. For financial filings it parses label/value/period tables and checks every calculation against the source numbers with a built-in financial calculator, so a fabricated figure or a wrong-year value gets caught.
The failure mode it's built to catch is hallucination — when an LLM confidently produces a wrong answer. Models don't crash when they hallucinate; there's no flag, no warning, no error code. They just sound certain about something that isn't true. That's what breaks naked LLM deployment in any setting where the answer actually matters. VERITROOPER catches it across any domain, with any model.
What you get out the other side: an adjusted accuracy score against ground truth, a per-question categorized list of every failure (with patterns and clusters identified), a per-category accuracy breakdown, a failure-recovery rate (the share of the model’s baseline failures the audit recovered), and concrete engineering recommendations that would close the specific gaps the LLM showed. Every verdict is reproducible from timestamped logs — no black box.
Deploying into Europe? One toggle adds the EU AI Act conformity evidence to the same run: declared accuracy and robustness testing (Article 15), a drop-in Annex IV technical-documentation record, recurring accuracy-drift monitoring (Article 72), a dated, signed human-review audit trail (Article 14), and a per-category gap diagnostic (Article 10). VERITROOPER produces the evidence a conformity file relies on — it does not replace the provider's conformity assessment or confer compliance.
Three regulated-domain data sets tested across seven different LLMs, phone-tier 7B to flagship frontier. Measured against the correct evidence with cross-vendor verification, every model — from a $2,000 RTX 4090 running a 7B up to flagship frontier APIs — lands in the 95.9–100% band on the same 1,000 IRS Tax Code questions. That's the punchline: this isn't a frontier-only luxury. Even a 7B on a laptop comes within shouting distance of a frontier model when grounding is solved — so the audit shows the gap on your data is mostly recoverable, and pinpoints exactly which failures to fix to close it.
For the story behind Scout and the cast, visit the home page.
For acquirers, pilot partners, and technical reviewers.
Live walkthroughs by request. Raw logs, full dataset, and patent package available on contact under NDA.
Pilot partners: a pilot runs VERITROOPER against your model and your corpus on a question set you approve, and returns the full audit — per-question failures, failure-recovery rate, and concrete fix recommendations. The public results, the sample run records, and the methodology need no NDA; raw logs, the full dataset, and the patent package are shared under NDA.