Online A/B experiments are the decision standard for user engagement, but traffic and readout time limit how many conversational-AI changes can be tested. We ask whether an offline signal designed to be computable without treatment-arm user exposure agrees with the outcomes of those experiments. We contribute a reusable construction and diagnosis checklist that treats an offline proxy as a chain of three alignments: behavioral label to product outcome, learned classifier to candidate-assistant behavior, and aggregated offline signal to experiment effect. A companion evaluation protocol audits the whole composite by interval-aware decision agreement, which compares offline and online confidence intervals instead of point estimates, and by within-experiment ranking. The instantiation we evaluate comprises a fixed evaluation suite on which candidate behavior is scored, an engagement classifier trained to predict session/prompt level engagements, and a calibration layer mapping sample-level score differences to online model-level engagement deltas. We then report the audit: 489 paired offline-online contrasts (one candidate arm against its control) from 27 experiments on a deployed multi-turn assistant, spanning model checkpoints to system-prompt tuning. Our primary test uses the 113 contrasts from eight experiments that ran after the map was frozen: on these the composite reaches 81.1% F1, against 34.3% for the raw classifier score it is built on, and makes no wrong-direction calls where that raw score makes 31. Every offline prediction was computed before its experiment ran to prevent overfitting. The evidence supports using the composite to prioritize candidates before scarce experiment traffic is allocated---in our deployment of the experiment, selecting among training checkpoints and tuning system prompts.

翻译：暂无翻译