NuePrism Docs
All docs Contact support View product tour →
Documentation / NuePrism Setup & Evaluation

NuePrism Setup & Evaluation

How a NuePrism pilot evaluation is scoped, set up, and assessed — from initial Jira connection through the evaluation decision point.

1. Purpose

A NuePrism evaluation is intended to determine whether NuePrism can identify meaningful execution risk from a team's Jira data, provide traceable supporting evidence, and surface useful interventions early enough for the responsible delivery roles to act.

The objective is not to evaluate another engineering dashboard. It is to determine whether an evidence-backed Execution Verdict can improve the timing and quality of delivery intervention.

2. Suggested Evaluation Scope

We recommend beginning with a deliberately controlled scope:

1 Jira team Agreed Jira project/board scope Limited evaluation period ~2 sprint cycles where practical

No expansion to additional teams or data sources is required for the initial evaluation. NueArcus assists with setup and configuration to minimize implementation effort.

3. What NuePrism Supports Today

Team Configuration

NuePrism supports team-level configuration including: team operating model/type, applicable Jira work-item structure, roles and responsibilities, and role-specific responsibility for actions/interventions. The configured operating model influences which execution principles, signals, and thresholds are applicable to that team.

Execution Diagnosis

NuePrism evaluates Jira execution data through deterministic signals and configured thresholds to identify execution conditions requiring attention.

Execution Verdict

The diagnosed signals are synthesized into an execution verdict identifying areas where intervention may be required.

Supporting Evidence

The verdict is connected to the underlying Jira evidence so the reasoning can be inspected rather than simply accepted.

Role-Routed Intervention

Recommended actions are directed to the role responsible for addressing the identified execution condition.

Auditability

The diagnostic chain from execution signal through evidence, verdict, and intervention remains inspectable.

4. Proposed Setup

1
Scope. The evaluating organization and NueArcus agree the Jira team, project/board, and evaluation period.
2
Connection. Establish the agreed Forge-based Jira integration and authorize only the required Jira scope.
3
Team Configuration. Configure the team's operating model, applicable work-item structure, and roles/responsibilities.
4
Data Validation. NueArcus and the evaluating team validate that the required Jira execution data is being interpreted correctly. Where required execution data is incomplete or unavailable, NuePrism surfaces the resulting evidence limitation rather than treating missing data as reliable evidence.
5
Initial Diagnosis. NuePrism establishes the team's current execution state and begins generating applicable diagnoses, evidence, and interventions.
6
Evaluation. The evaluating team assesses the usefulness and relevance of the surfaced execution conditions and interventions over the agreed period.

5. High-Level Data Flow

Customer Jira → Forge-based Jira Integration → NuePrism API / Processing Layer → NuePrism Data Store & Diagnostic Engine → AI Reasoning & Synthesis Layer → Evidence-Backed Verdict & Role-Routed Intervention

Detailed permissions, data fields, storage, retention/deletion requirements, and security controls are agreed before production customer data is connected. See NuePrism Security & Data Handling Overview.

6. What We Propose to Evaluate

The evaluation should answer four practical questions:

Detection

Did NuePrism identify execution conditions that delivery leaders considered worth knowing about?

Evidence

Could the team inspect the underlying Jira evidence and understand why the condition was raised?

Relevance

Did the diagnosis reflect the team's actual operating model and execution context?

Actionability

Was the recommended intervention useful to the person responsible for the delivery outcome?

7. Security Before Connection

Before production data is connected, the evaluating organization and NueArcus agree the required:

A separate NuePrism Security & Data Handling Overview accompanies this document and describes the current architecture, data handling, AI processing, tenant isolation, access controls, retention/deletion status, backup/recovery, and current compliance posture.

The security position distinguishes between: Implemented controls → Inherited infrastructure/provider controls → Controls in progress / gaps. NueArcus will not represent a certification or control as available unless it can be evidenced.

8. Evaluation Outcome

At the end of the agreed evaluation period, the evaluating organization and NueArcus jointly review the evidence and determine the appropriate next step:

Conclude evaluation Refine configuration Extend evaluation Expand to additional teams Discuss commercial adoption

The evaluation therefore has a defined decision point rather than becoming an open-ended PoC.

The question the evaluation should ultimately answer: Can NuePrism identify meaningful execution risk, explain the evidence behind it, and provide useful interventions early enough for delivery leaders to act?

Ready to scope a pilot evaluation?
View the product tour or request a walkthrough with your team's own data.

Last updated: September 2026