Relay

RelayCase Navigator?gr-004-dedicated-ip-promise

Case4 / 110DatasetGrounded ReplyTargetEditAreaDeliverability

ExplainerKB / Policy Bank Previous Next

Cases4

Grounded Reply

gr-001-stale-refund-window - Reject

Customer cites stale 30-day refund article

Grounded Reply

gr-002-auto-upgrade-refund - Edit

Auto-upgrade refund promise after list upload

Grounded Reply

gr-003-harborguard-refund-window - Edit

HarborGuard appeal plus refund-window confusion

Router Eval

routine-invoice-copy-1 - Routine request

billing

Customer Message

Our campaigns keep landing in spam. If we upgrade to Pro and buy a dedicated IP, will that fix our deliverability and stop HarborGuard from throttling us?

Dedicated IP as deliverability fix

Account Context

Current plan is Scale-100k.

HarborGuard state is Restricted due to complaint rate 0.38%.

Dedicated IP is not currently provisioned.

AI Draft Reply

Upgrading to Pro with a dedicated IP should fix this by separating your reputation from the shared pool, and it should prevent HarborGuard from throttling your campaigns. I recommend upgrading before your next send.

Citations

Claim Review3 checks

partially supportedCites 1

A dedicated IP can help high-volume senders manage reputation.

Directionally true, but the draft turns 'can help' into a guaranteed fix.

contradictedCites 1

A dedicated IP should fix spam placement.

Policy says dedicated IPs do not guarantee inbox placement.

policy violationCites 2

A dedicated IP should prevent HarborGuard throttling.

Policy explicitly prohibits saying it bypasses HarborGuard.

Risk Flags

Main risk: Failure mode: dedicated ip deliverability promise

Expected decision: Edit

The draft should be rewritten to explain dedicated IP tradeoffs and the active complaint-rate restriction without guarantees.

Failure mode: dedicated ip deliverability promise

Issue area: deliverability

Reviewer DecisionHuman outcome for this AI draft

Review and decide if the draft is grounded, policy-safe, complete, and the right action.

Use A, E, X, or R to choose an action. Click citations to inspect evidence.

Override ReasonOptional

Stakeholder Context

What drives the review decision, and why this setup is currently recommended.

Reviewer TargetAnswer key

Expected decision: edit

The draft should be rewritten to explain dedicated IP tradeoffs and the active complaint-rate restriction without guarantees.

Detect guarantee language in deliverability advice.

Prefer policy over marketing-soft KB language.

Experiment SummaryBest current setup for reviewCollapsed by default so the review workflow stays focused.

The demo stays on this review decision, but the experiment spine now tells us which setup should power it. The current recommendation keeps safe approvals, blocks unsafe approvals, and returns clean structured output every time.

Llama R3

Production pick

Best operating row: highest reliable accuracy with zero parse failures.

Parsed accuracy95%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures0 / 150

P95 latency17.2s

Nemotron R3

Conservative runner-up

Strong safety/usefulness row, but one malformed JSON output.

Parsed accuracy90%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures1 / 150

P95 latency27.8s

Qwen R3

Research signal

Perfect on parsed rows, but parse reliability blocks production use.

Parsed accuracy100%

Unsafe approval0%

Approval precision100%

Parse failures7 / 150

P95 latency34.4s

Parsed accuracy means accuracy after excluding malformed model outputs. Parse failures still count as product failures, which is why Llama beats Qwen for production despite Qwen's perfect parsed rows.