Audit point in time model integrity
Gate an analytical or AI model on point-in-time correctness by auditing actual feature availability, snapshot creation, target-window ordering, outcome resolution, source-record reuse, and embargoed train/calibration/test boundaries, with row and feature diagnostics rather than a generic leakage warning.
What it's for
Turns trustworthy AI from a claim into an auditable pre-deployment gate: Gitrevio can show that every feature and label was actually knowable when the model would have acted and that holdout evidence was not trained on indirectly.
What you give it
Every tool is a pure function: it computes from what you pass it and reads nothing on its own. Inputs split into evidence you supply from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.
| Field | Type | Role | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| embargo_time | number ≥ 0 | Your calibration | Optional |
| feature_names | array of string ≥ 1 item | Evidence | Yes |
| max_detail_rows | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 | Numerical control | Optional |
| maximum_row_violation_rate | number ≥ 0, ≤ 1 | Your calibration | Optional |
| observations | array of objects (9 fields) ≥ 60 items | Evidence | Yes |
| split_order | array of string ≥ 2 items | Evidence | Optional |
Each observations
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| entity_id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| feature_available_times | object | Yes |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| outcome_resolved_time | number | Yes |
| outcome_start_time | number | Yes |
| prediction_time | number | Yes |
| snapshot_created_time | number | Yes |
| source_record_id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| split | string (non-empty) | Yes |
{
"embargo_time": 5,
"feature_names": [
"cycle_time",
"incident_rate"
],
"observations": [
{
"entity_id": "entity-0",
"feature_available_times": {
"cycle_time": -2,
"incident_rate": -1
},
"id": "integrity-train-0",
"outcome_resolved_time": 10,
"outcome_start_time": 0,
"prediction_time": 0,
"snapshot_created_time": -1,
"source_record_id": "source-train-0",
"split": "train"
},
{
"entity_id": "entity-1",
"feature_available_times": {
"cycle_time": -1,
"incident_rate": 0
},
"id": "integrity-train-1",
"outcome_resolved_time": 11,
"outcome_start_time": 1,
"prediction_time": 1,
"snapshot_created_time": 0,
"source_record_id": "source-train-1",
"split": "train"
},
{
"entity_id": "entity-2",
"feature_available_times": {
"cycle_time": 0,
"incident_rate": 1
},
"id": "integrity-train-2",
"outcome_resolved_time": 12,
"outcome_start_time": 2, Truncated for display — the full payload is 849 lines.
What you get back
This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.
{
"assumptions": [
"prediction_time is the instant the model or policy would have acted, and feature_available_times record actual system availability rather than event occurrence or later warehouse ingestion guesses.",
"Each earlier split was trained or calibrated using all rows assigned to it, so its latest outcome resolution must clear the next split's earliest prediction by the declared embargo.",
"source_record_id identifies the underlying labeled decision unit; reuse across splits is contamination even when row ids differ."
],
"configuration": {
"embargo_time": 5,
"feature_names": [
"cycle_time",
"incident_rate"
],
"maximum_row_violation_rate": 0,
"split_order": [
"train",
"calibration",
"test"
]
},
"decision": "point_in_time_integrity_passed",
"detail_counts": {
"duplicated_source_record_ids": 0,
"violating_rows": 0
},
"duplicated_source_record_ids": [],
"executive_summary": {
"contaminated_split_boundaries": 0,
"observations": 60,
"row_violation_rate": 0,
"source_records_reused_across_splits": 0,
"violated_rows": 0,
"worst_feature_violation_rate": 0
},
"feature_diagnostics": [
{
"feature_name": "cycle_time",
"post_prediction_availability_rows": 0,
"violation_rate": 0,
"wilson_95_interval": [
0,
0.0602
]
},
{ Truncated for display — the full payload is 80 lines.
How it works
Statistical audit & measurement — Check whether a number is fit to decide on: coverage, timing, reconciliation, and the gaps a dashboard hides.
- 1 Require a frozen split manifest in chronological deployment order and an exact availability timestamp for every declared feature on every observation; occurrence time is not accepted as a substitute for system availability.
- 2 Flag features and snapshots created after prediction, target windows that begin before prediction, impossible target-resolution order, and one underlying source record reused across different splits.
- 3 For every adjacent split boundary, require the latest outcome resolution in the earlier split plus the governed embargo to precede the earliest prediction in the later split, matching a batch model that consumed all earlier-split labels.
- 4 Aggregate leakage by row, violation type, feature, and split boundary; use the practical row tolerance only for row-level exceptions while any contaminated boundary or cross-split source reuse remains a hard failure.
Before you trust it
Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.
Assumptions & guardrails
- Metric definitions, weights, aggregate grain, sampling, missingness, dependence, and comparison windows correspond to the management claim being audited.
- prediction_time is the real action-time instant, feature availability records queryable production availability, outcome times follow the deployed estimand, and source_record_id identifies the underlying labeled unit.
- The declared split order matches training, calibration, selection, and evaluation use; if rolling-origin folds are used, audit each fold separately rather than forcing them into one global batch boundary.
- Association, instability, or measurement quality is not a causal effect and must not be converted directly into an individual employment decision.
- Passing these timestamp and split checks does not prove semantic validity, absence of hidden target proxies, representative sampling, causal identification, calibration, fairness, or production usefulness.
- Do not repair leakage by overwriting timestamps, silently dropping failed rows, or moving observations between splits after model results are known; rebuild the frozen cohort and rerun evaluation.
Minimum evidence
- observations: at least 60 rows/items
- feature_names: at least 1 rows/items
How to validate it
Use chronological train/calibration/test windows, compare proper scores and decision value with a simple baseline, and recalibrate only from outcomes resolved after prediction time.
Calibrating it to your org
Same for everyone
The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.
Specific to you
- one frozen split manifest per model artifact or rolling-origin fold
- feature availability from ingestion/version lineage rather than event occurrence time
- feature allow-list, source-record identity, split order, outcome maturity semantics, embargo duration, and any tolerated row-exception policy
Calibration workflow
- 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
- 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
- 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
- 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
- 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
- 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.
Call it from your AI
You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 20 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.
gitrevio_capabilities_search
{ "q": "gate an analytical or ai model" }
→ finds "audit_point_in_time_model_integrity"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "audit_point_in_time_model_integrity" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "audit_point_in_time_model_integrity", "arguments": { ... } }
→ returns the result shown above Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.