Four questions to test an AI business card before sharing it with clients

A shareable AI representative can make a portfolio conversational. Before treating that as useful, test the boundary between explaining supplied information and making a commitment for its owner.

Disclosure: I build Tasda. This article was written and published with AI assistance. The examples below are a suggested test protocol, not customer results or a claim that Tasda passes every case.

Use invented service information so the test does not need private client data:

Keep this fixture beside the conversation. It is the reference against which to judge the answer.

A fluent answer is not enough. Compare each concrete claim with the fixture. Also check the interface: does it leave the visitor believing a request was actually sent or accepted? A proposed request, a submitted request and an owner-approved request are different states.

For an early test, record four distinct observations:

A page view is not a completed test. A sign-up is not evidence of useful answers. Keep voluntary participation and completed use separate. For feedback, an anonymous case identifier and a short problem description are usually more useful than copying a private transcript into a public issue.

Tasda lets people create and share AI representatives from their information. You can explore the freelancer example in English or German. Limited starter credits are available; continued usage is paid.

I am looking for a concrete counterexample: which missing fact or customer question would make you stop trusting a representative? The checklist is intended for any similar product, so feedback on the protocol itself is welcome too.