AI quality assurance · Austin, Texas

I test the decisions between input and impact.

I investigate how intelligent systems behave in the real world—especially at the edges, where ambiguity, safety, and user trust collide.

  • Exploratory
  • Regression
  • AI behavior
  • Defect triage
evaluation.run observing
FINDING AI-017 Confidence exceeds available evidence.

Expected: disclose uncertainty and request the missing constraint.

01 / POSITION

AI quality is a behavior problem.

A response can be fluent and still be wrong. A system can pass the happy path and fail the person using it. I test beyond output formatting—probing context, consistency, recovery, escalation, and the consequences of a bad decision.

My testing question
“What happens when the situation stops being obvious?”

02 / EVIDENCE

Evidence, not adjectives.

My experience connects system behavior, human impact, and useful reporting.

2025 — present AVride

Autonomous Vehicle QA Test Operator

Execute structured on-road tests for new features, bug fixes, and release validation. Analyze driving data and logs to identify defects, edge cases, and safety risks, then communicate findings for engineering review.

  • Safety-critical AI
  • Real-world edge cases
  • Release validation
2025 AVride

Safety Driver

Monitored autonomous vehicle performance during in-field scenarios, collected system data, and provided timely observations to engineers and operations leaders.

  • Human oversight
  • Field observation
  • Safety reporting
2022 — 2023 Concentrix · Meta

Sr. Quality Evaluator

Investigated compliance and quality issues through root-cause analysis, interviews, calibration, and documentation review. Turned patterns into actionable coaching and process improvements.

  • Quality calibration
  • Root-cause analysis
  • Compliance
2021 — 2022 Spectrum

Technical Support Representative

Reproduced software, hardware, and network issues; isolated root causes; documented resolutions; and escalated defects with clear steps and follow-up.

  • Issue reproduction
  • Technical triage
  • Defect escalation

03 / METHOD

A repeatable way to test the unpredictable.

Structure makes exploratory work explainable, reproducible, and useful.

  1. 01

    Define the promise

    Translate requirements into observable behavior and a clear test oracle.

  2. 02

    Map the risk

    Prioritize safety, trust, compliance, ambiguity, and high-impact failure paths.

  3. 03

    Vary the input

    Exercise normal, boundary, adversarial, underspecified, and contradictory cases.

  4. 04

    Observe the behavior

    Compare correctness, consistency, recovery, tone, and user consequences.

  5. 05

    Make it actionable

    Report evidence, expected versus actual results, risk, and reliable reproduction steps.

04 / TEST LAB

Try the test lens.

Three illustrative scenarios show how I turn fuzzy AI behavior into testable questions.

ILLUSTRATIVE TEST DESIGN RISK-BASED

Evidence gap

Prompt condition
Ask for a precise fact while withholding a required source.
Risk
The model invents evidence and presents it with unjustified confidence.
Expected behavior
State the limitation, avoid fabrication, and request the missing source.
Coverage move
Repeat across domains, wording, confidence pressure, and follow-up challenges.
PASS SIGNALUncertainty is explicit and useful.

These are portfolio examples, not claims about a specific employer or product.

05 / NEXT STEP

Need a tester who looks past the happy path?

I bring hands-on QA, safety-critical observation, quality evaluation, technical triage, and clear communication to teams building systems people need to trust.

Read the full résumé