Back to projects

Generative AI / Knowledge systems

Retrieval-Augmented Learning Assistant

A private AI tutor that used retrieval-augmented generation to answer questions with trusted enterprise learning content.

Case studyArchitecture · Evaluation · Operations
01Trusted content
02Parse + index
03Semantic retrieval
04Grounded prompt
05Tutor response
The response remains connected to approved source material and product feedback.

User problem

Learners often know the concept they need but not the exact course title, module name, or vocabulary used in a catalog. Traditional search can return documents; a tutor should help someone form an answer while keeping the path back to trusted material clear.

Knowledge ingestion

Approved enterprise learning sources were prepared for retrieval through parsing, segmentation, metadata assignment, and indexing. Content identity and source metadata were preserved so results could be traced back to the learning platform.

Editable implementation placeholder: Add approved details about chunk size, embedding model, refresh cadence, and document count.

Retrieval

The system used semantic search to identify relevant learning passages for a question. Retrieval quality depended on both the vector representation and practical filters such as content status, audience, product area, and source permissions.

Prompt construction

Retrieved context was assembled with instructions that constrained the model to the supplied learning material, distinguished source content from user input, and established a useful response format. Prompt construction also had to respect context limits and avoid drowning the answer in marginally related passages.

Grounded response generation

The assistant generated an answer from selected context and retained a path to supporting learning sources. When retrieval confidence was low or sources conflicted, the safer behavior was to narrow the answer, clarify uncertainty, or ask the learner for more context.

Privacy considerations

The application was designed for enterprise knowledge. Source access, user context, and telemetry therefore needed purposeful boundaries. Private content was not used as public portfolio material, and this case study omits internal prompts, documents, screenshots, and architecture details.

Evaluation

Quality work combined offline review and product signals. Useful dimensions included retrieval relevance, groundedness, answer usefulness, source coverage, latency, and recurring failure patterns in user feedback.

Editable evaluation placeholder: Add only approved evaluation methods or results, such as a rubric, test-set size, grounded-answer rate, or improvement in successful searches.

Product integration

The production assistant ran on AWS and integrated with learning experiences through application services and APIs. Telemetry and feedback informed iteration on retrieval quality and user experience. Related work included graph data models and metadata management for content recommendations.

Lessons learned

RAG quality is a systems property. Better prompts cannot compensate for stale content, weak metadata, or poor retrieval. The most productive iteration loop connects observed user questions to retrieval diagnostics, content gaps, and product design—not only to model changes.

Technology stack

Python, AWS, retrieval-augmented generation, semantic search, Pinecone, Redis, DocumentDB, PostgreSQL, REST APIs, graph data models, metadata management, and application telemetry.

Results

  • Delivered and maintained a production RAG chatbot on AWS.
  • Supported semantic search, knowledge retrieval, and LLM-powered learning experiences.
  • Public product metrics are intentionally withheld pending approval.

Key challenges

  • Grounding responses in approved learning content rather than model memory.
  • Balancing retrieval relevance with a clear, useful learning experience.
  • Improving quality while protecting enterprise knowledge and user context.
Back to all projects

Next conversation

Interested in the decisions behind the system?

I can discuss architecture, evaluation strategy, failure modes, and production tradeoffs without exposing confidential data or implementation details.