Review a model-provider change in an agent

When to use this guide

An agent switches model providers while its interface still promises a review process and output marking capability associated with the old service.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

1. List product claims and technical controls that depend on the provider.

2. Compare documented capabilities and actual integration behavior for the replacement.

3. Run representative interaction and output tests with synthetic inputs.

4. Update evidence references and remove unsupported claims before closing the change.

What the example review finds

• The interface names a provider no longer used.

• The new output path does not preserve the former marking information.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

• Old provider

• New provider

• Dependent claim

• Integration test

• Evidence update

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

A provider change may affect wider obligations; this worksheet does not determine legal roles or vendor suitability.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.