PreprintCC BY 4.0Zenodo
RAC vs human mentor: a verifiability split to test on your coaching queue
Abstract
Classify coaching requests as VERIFIABLE or JUDGMENT, then route RAC or human mentors using RAG-grounded answers and a four-column measurement framework.
Independent technical note mirroring the canonical version: https://mentaport.xyz/blog/rac-vs-human-mentor-a-verifiability-split-to-test-on-your-coaching-queue.php
Related
- New hire coaching 2026: Retrieval-Augmented Coaching cuts time-to-competency 24% vs mentor
- Exact analysis of a split--merge queue with latent Erlang-factor dependent subtask times
- Learning When to Automate: Queue Control in Human-AI Service Systems
- Patient engagement, acceptability, and preference of artificial intelligence versus human coaching for diabetes prevention
- Privacy-Preserving Identity-Based Undeniable Signatures from Lattices with Controlled Verifiability for IoT Networks
BibTeX
@misc{vargas2026human,
title = {{RAC vs human mentor: a verifiability split to test on your coaching queue}},
author = {Elena Vargas},
howpublished = {Zenodo},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.23451239},
url = {https://zenodo.org/records/23451239},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - RAC vs human mentor: a verifiability split to test on your coaching queue
AU - Elena Vargas
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/18
PB - Zenodo
DO - 10.5281/zenodo.23451239
UR - https://zenodo.org/records/23451239
AB - Classify coaching requests as VERIFIABLE or JUDGMENT, then route RAC or human mentors using RAG-grounded answers and a four-column measurement framework. Independent technical note mirroring the canonical version: https://mentaport.xyz/blog/rac-vs-human-mentor-a-verifiability-split-to-test-on-your-coaching-queue.php
ER -