Systems and methods for assigning value to ungated input (AVUI)

Modern AI systems increasingly rely on large volumes of mixed data: highly structured fields (such as form inputs and database columns) and loosely structured or unstructured “ungated” inputs (such as voice, free-text prompts, uploaded documents, URLs, behavioral signals and contextual logs). In many deployments, the majority of the useful signal about what a user actually needs, what was helpful, and what was harmful is carried in these ungated inputs and their surrounding context.

Current production AI stacks typically log raw requests and responses, maintain basic telemetry and expose coarse feedback channels such as thumbs-up / thumbs-down buttons or star ratings. These mechanisms are generally designed for aggregate model improvement and A/B testing. They are not designed to assign durable, fine-grained value to specific ungated inputs and to carry that value forward as a first-class signal that other systems can query and act upon.

In many systems, especially those built around large language models or similar generative engines, all ungated inputs are effectively treated the same at runtime. A long, carefully crafted prompt from an expert user and a noisy, low-signal input from a novice user may both be processed with similar amounts of compute, and their long-term influence on the system is often indistinguishable in the logs. Operators may be able to see that a given session “performed well” or “performed poorly,” but they lack a structured, machine-readable record of which specific ungated inputs were truly valuable, which were misleading, and which were irrelevant.

Existing feedback tools tend to operate at the level of entire responses or entire sessions. For example, a user may mark a full answer as “helpful” or “not helpful,” or a reviewer may override a model decision in a moderation or workflow tool. These signals are useful for training and tuning, but they are typically stored as opaque events that are difficult to align with the specific pieces of ungated input that drove the behavior. As a result, systems struggle to learn which particular documents, snippets, URLs, or behavioral patterns should be treated as high-value inputs in future interactions, and which should be treated as low-value or actively risky.

This limitation becomes more acute in safety-critical and regulated domains such as healthcare, finance, education and child safety. In these environments, a system may ingest a mix of structured data (such as age, account type or diagnosis codes) and ungated inputs (such as free-text descriptions, uploaded records or conversational history). When a bad outcome occurs, investigators may be able to reconstruct the raw interaction from logs, but they often lack a clear, durable record of which ungated inputs were judged by humans to be decisive, misleading or dangerous. Without such a record, it is difficult to improve policies, reduce future risk or show regulators that the system is learning from experience in a governed way.

There are also cost and optimization implications. Ungated inputs can be arbitrarily long and noisy. Without a way to distinguish high-value from low-value ungated inputs, systems may spend excessive compute analyzing every piece of text, every uploaded file and every behavioral signal as if they were equally important. This can lead to unnecessary spending on compute, storage and retrieval, while still failing to concentrate resources on the specific ungated inputs that actually drive outcomes. Conversely, attempts to reduce cost by truncating inputs or limiting history may discard information that human experts would consider highly valuable, simply because the system has no durable record of that expert judgment.

Some systems attempt to address these issues by retraining or fine-tuning models on curated datasets, or by adjusting retrieval pipelines based on click-through rates and aggregate engagement metrics. While these approaches can improve overall performance, they do not provide a direct, structured way to record and reuse human judgments about the value of specific ungated inputs as such. The value signal tends to be entangled with many other factors in model weights and analytics dashboards, and it is not exposed in a form that other components can query at runtime.

Furthermore, most existing feedback mechanisms are optimized for anonymous or aggregate behavior. They rarely distinguish between the judgments of a subject-matter expert, a regulator, a frontline operator or an end user. In many deployments, the system would benefit from treating some human judgments about ungated inputs as more authoritative than others, or from preserving separate value histories for different roles or verticals. Conventional architectures do not provide a standard way to capture, store and query these role-specific value assessments of ungated inputs over time.

Logging and observability tools also tend to focus on debugging, performance monitoring and compliance snapshots, rather than on building a reusable “memory” of which ungated inputs have proven to be helpful, harmful or irrelevant. They record what happened, but not in a form that allows other governors, routers or optimization layers to ask, at runtime, “Has this particular type of ungated input been useful in the past, according to humans who actually reviewed it?” or “Have experts repeatedly marked this class of ungated input as dangerous or misleading?”

As AI systems are deployed into more complex workflows and multi-party environments, these gaps become more problematic. A single ungated input, such as a user-supplied document or a free-text description, may be reused across many sessions and components. Without a persistent, structured record of human judgments about that input’s value and risk, each component must effectively rediscover the same lessons from scratch, or rely on brittle heuristics. This leads to repeated mistakes, inconsistent behavior across systems, and missed opportunities to reduce risk and cost by treating some ungated inputs as more important than others.

There is therefore an unmet need for systems and methods that can capture, store and expose structured human judgments about the value and risk of ungated inputs, without requiring retraining of underlying models; that can represent these judgments in a durable, machine-readable form; that can differentiate among roles, verticals and contexts; and that can make these value assessments available to other governors, optimizers and policy engines at runtime.

This is the complete BACKGROUND section of the SPECIFICATION. The entire SPECIFICATION is available for inspection under NDA after remit of EVALUATION FEE.