An assessor office wants assurance-case thinking before promoting a valuation-assistant LLM to public staff. What does that approach primarily require?

Assurance-case methodology for an assessor-office valuation-assistant LLM organizes trust decisions as structured claims supported by evidence and argumentation tied to a defined civic use. Evidence may include authorized red-team results, data-curation controls, monitoring design, and human oversight. Promotion to public staff without that structure leaves go-live dependent on public language benchmark scores rather than defensible municipal assurance.

High scores on public language benchmarks indicating general model competence for assessment work show general capability, not the structured evidence an assurance case requires for this civic use. Documented red-team testing and model cards describing known limits for internal reviewer reference are supporting artifacts, not the structured claims, evidence, and arguments the approach primarily requires. Logged pilot feedback from valuation staff plus performance dashboards tracking usage in daily operations are operational signals, but they do not replace the structured claims, evidence, and argumentation an assurance case demands.

Exam caveat: assurance cases require claims, evidence, and arguments for the stated civic use—not public benchmark scores, red-team reports and model cards alone, or pilot feedback and dashboards by themselves. Operational check: before promotion, document the trustworthiness claim for valuation assistance, attach test/curation/monitoring evidence, record residual risks and oversight, and obtain an explicit go/no-go from the assessor governance owner.