Trust & Evaluation
AI File Renaming Methodology & Benchmarks
This page explains how Zush evaluates AI file renaming on Mac and Windows. We publish the scoring rubric, benchmark protocol, and review cadence so recommendations stay reproducible, auditable, and useful for real batch operations across mixed folders.
Editorial Accountability
Zush Editorial Team
Zush Product Team
Criteria are reviewed monthly, with material changes logged in the changelog.
Scoring Rubric
Each workflow run is graded against a weighted model that balances naming accuracy, operational safety, and day-to-day usability inside real Mac and Windows workflows.
| Dimension | Weight | What we measure |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic filename accuracy | 35% | Does the new name describe file meaning, not only generic patterns? |
| Consistency in batch runs | 20% | Stable naming style across mixed files in one task. |
| Automation depth | 15% | Batch workflow, folder monitoring, and repeatability. |
| Safety controls | 15% | History, rollback, preview-before-apply behavior. |
| Operational fit | 15% | Platform workflow quality on Mac and Windows, speed, and setup friction. |
Benchmark Protocol
- 01
Use a mixed-file benchmark set covering screenshots, design files, RAW and HEIC photos, PDFs, iWork, Office documents, audio, and video — no synthetic single-format tests.
- 02
Run controlled rename jobs with identical prompts, templates, and Naming Blocks across cloud AI (Gemini, Groq, OpenAI, Claude) and Offline AI via Ollama.
- 03
Score outputs against the rubric and record false positives, ambiguous labels, and any collisions inside batch runs.
- 04
Validate rollback, preview, and one-click revert behavior on both Mac and Windows builds before marking a setup production-safe.
- 05
Repeat checks after each release and log material changes in the public changelog with date and reason.