MENU
You have a Microsoft Foundry project that uses Azure Al Search to ground an agent in internal documentation.
After a recent content update, users report that the agent's answers have become less accurate.
You need to identify whether the retrieved content is negatively influencing the model's generated responses.
Which observability signal should you review?
The correct observability signal is B. groundedness evaluation metrics. In a RAG solution, the key diagnostic question is whether the generated answer is supported by the retrieved context. Microsoft Foundry's built-in evaluator reference defines Groundedness as the metric that measures how grounded the response is in the retrieved context, with scoring that indicates whether the model's claims are supported by the provided source material.
This matches the issue after a content update. If retrieved chunks are stale, misleading, incomplete, or poorly aligned with the user query, groundedness results can show that generated responses are not reliably supported by the retrieved documentation. The RAG evaluator guidance explains that groundedness focuses on whether the response avoids content outside the grounding context, while other process metrics such as retrieval evaluate how relevant the retrieved chunks are. Latency traces are useful for performance troubleshooting, not response accuracy. Indexer status can reveal ingestion failures, but it does not show whether retrieved content is influencing generated answers negatively. Prediction drift is a model monitoring concept and is not the primary signal for RAG grounding quality. Reference topics: Microsoft Foundry observability, RAG evaluators, groundedness, retrieved context, and response quality evaluation.