PMI-CPMAI guidance on evaluating operational AI systems, especially in risk-sensitive domains like fraud detection, stresses that project managers mustlink model performance to business KPIs using multiple complementary evaluation methods, not a single metric. The material explains that fraud models have asymmetric costs (false positives vs. false negatives), evolving fraud patterns, and complex business impacts, so “no single measure is sufficient to characterize business value or risk.” Instead, teams are encouraged to usea diverse set of validation techniques, such as holdout and cross-validation, backtesting on historical periods, confusion matrices, cost/benefit-weighted metrics, and A/B or champion–challenger tests in production-like environments.
PMI-CPMAI also notes that evaluation should combine technical metrics (precision, recall, ROC/AUC, F1, lift) with business-oriented indicators (fraud losses avoided, investigation workload, customer friction, and regulatory or compliance thresholds). Using multiple techniques allows the project manager to check consistency across views and avoid being misled by a single “good-looking” number that hides harmful side effects. Relying on quarterly financial reports or external experts alone does not provide the granular, model-specific insight required, and a single comprehensive metric contradicts PMI’s emphasis on multidimensional evaluation. Therefore, to ensure an accurate and reliable assessment of the AI fraud system against business KPIs, the most effective method isutilizing a diverse set of validation techniques.
==============
