Skip to content

Conversation

@kazmer97
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

@kazmer97 kazmer97 force-pushed the feat/new-assesment branch 9 times, most recently from 1eca103 to 1fce626 Compare November 27, 2025 14:27
@kazmer97 kazmer97 marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 11:57
image:
target_height: ""
target_width: ""
granular:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't look backward compatible. Is it? We do not want to break the existing granular assessment. Or do you propose that we replace 'granular assessment' (our current default) with 'agentic assessment'?

- Provide tight, accurate bounding boxes around the actual text
</assessment-guidelines>
<spatial-localization-guidelines>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, won't removing this break the current assessment implementation?

The module supports both:
1. Original approach: Single inference for all attributes in a section
2. Granular approach: Multiple focused inferences with caching and parallelization
All assessment now uses the granular approach with Strands agents for
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, this answers my question above.. you are replacing granular assessment with agentic assessment.. High stakes - we have customers (like Deluxe) relying on this.. if the new method consistently works better and doesn't affect cost, then i agree this is cleaner, more maintainable, approach.. But you'll need to do tests to prove that.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you clarify the changes to the UI? I was not expecting any UI changes, and hard to assess the nature/purpose from code read.
Mostly, can you confirm that changes are backward compatible with processed docs using the previous method, and especially with pattern-1 BDA output.. Or put differently, can you confirm that the JSON structure for explainability_info in the results.json is unchanged?

@rstrahan
Copy link
Contributor

rstrahan commented Dec 8, 2025

Too many code changes for me to make sense of, but I did ask a few questions.. can you replay inline. Tx!

Also, as we discussed today, Nova 2 is specialized in geometry.. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/nova/latest/nova2-userguide/prompting-multimodal.html#:~:text=Detect%20objects%20and%20their%20positions%20in%20images
Please make sure we can use Nova2-Lite for geometry with prompting guidelines from the doc above - i think it will shine.

@kazmer97 kazmer97 force-pushed the feat/new-assesment branch 5 times, most recently from 6a17108 to 12fb11e Compare December 9, 2025 15:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants