Domain-First AI: Choosing and Adapting Models That Actually Work in Your Industry
Introduction
Most AI projects don’t fail because the model is “bad.” They fail because the model is misaligned with the domain—its vocabulary, constraints, risks, and success metrics. This article is a practical guide to picking and adapting models for specific industries (healthcare, finance, legal, manufacturing, etc.), and to operating them with the right data, guardrails, and economics.
Think of domain fit as “operational gravity.” If your prompts, data, and controls reflect the realities of your industry, even modest models fall into stable orbits—predictable behavior, low variance, and explainable outputs. Without that gravity, the biggest model drifts: answers look fluent but wobble against policy, provenance, and cost.
Foundation vs. Domain Models: When to Use What
General Foundation Models (GFMs): Great for broad reasoning, open-ended language, and cold-start scenarios. Use them for exploration, long-tail questions, or as fallbacks.
Domain-Adapted Models (DAMs): Smaller or mid-sized models adapted to your terminology, formats, and constraints. Use them for the 70–95% of routine workload where cost, latency, and compliance matter most.
Hybrid Portfolios: Route easy/structured tasks to a Private Tailored SLM (1–7B) and escalate uncertain or novel tasks to a larger GFM. Let routing depend on risk, uncertainty, and document type, not gut feel.
A simple test for portfolio health is “coverage vs. escalation.” Track what percentage of requests the domain model resolves within contract guarantees (grounding, schema, latency) and what escalates to the GFM. As coverage rises and escalations become rarer and more informative, you’ve tuned the portfolio correctly.
Adaptation Ladder: The Least You Can Do That Works
Order these from cheapest to most involved—move down only when metrics demand it.
Prompt Contract (must-have): Role/scope, policies (freshness, sources, tie-breaks), abstention rules, strict JSON output schema.
Domain Retrieval (RAG) with Policy Filters: Eligibility before relevance (tenant, jurisdiction, license), minimal-span citations, timestamped claims.
Style/Format Fine-Tunes (Thin): Teach layout and jargon (reports, forms, code transforms). Keep changing rules in the prompt, not the weights.
Adapters/LoRA Heads: Add domain heads for specialized parsing or classification while keeping a clean base model.
Full Task Tuning: Only if thin adapters can’t reach quality targets and you have robust evaluation + data governance.
The ladder guards you from “premature training.” Each rung adds complexity and governance debt. Only descend when your evals show a specific, stable gap—e.g., persistent schema errors that survive prompt fixes—so you’re tuning for operational need, not vanity gains.
Data Strategy by Domain
Healthcare: Structured guidelines (NICE/CDC), formularies, care pathways, de-identified notes. Focus on abstention quality, red-flag routing, and minimal-span citations.
Finance: Ledgers, policy schedules, disclosures, rate sheets. Prioritize determinism, idempotent tool use, and traceable computations.
Legal: Statutes, contracts, clauses, opinion summaries. Emphasize versioning & jurisdiction, conflict surfacing, and quote-level provenance.
Manufacturing: SOPs, equipment manuals, telemetry, incident reports. Add multimodal (images/diagrams), and tool calls for calculations/spec checks.
Customer Support/SaaS: KB articles, ticket traces, release notes. Optimize for deflection accuracy, first-try resolution, and safe escalations.
Whatever the domain, attach effective_date, source_id, jurisdiction, and tenant to every chunk or claim at ingest time. Those four fields turn raw text into governed evidence and make downstream retrieval, tie-breaking, and audits straightforward.
Evaluation That Maps to Real Risk
Replace “seems good” with measurable guarantees:
Grounded Accuracy: Agreement with eligible sources (not vibes).
Citation Precision/Recall: Minimal-span quotes for factual claims.
Policy Adherence: Did the output follow the contract (schema, abstentions, conflicts surfaced)?
Abstention Quality: Targeted follow-ups vs. confident guesses when required fields are missing.
Latency & Cost: p50/p95 latency; $/successful outcome (not per token).
Drift Watch: Track recency coverage and conflict rates; alert when stale sources dominate.
Build a “red team” challenge set per domain—edge cases that combine stale policy, conflicting sources, missing fields, and risky phrasing. Passing this set is a stronger predictor of production stability than average-case scores.
Safety & Governance Patterns (Non-Negotiable)
Ask/Refuse/Escalate: Define required fields per route and encode uncertainty thresholds.
Tool Mediation: Model proposes tool calls; your system validates & executes. Never let prose imply a write succeeded.
PII/PHI Controls: Redact upstream, allow-list retrieval sources, and keep tamper-evident audit trails.
Jurisdictional Routing: Only use sources valid for the user’s region and date; surface conflicts with dates, never harmonize silently.
Treat every user-visible answer as a signed artifact: it should be reproducible from the same context pack and contract. If you can’t replay it, you don’t truly control it—auditors and incident responders will notice.
Cost & Latency: Domain Economics
Set token budgets per route (header/context/generation). Compress context into atomic, timestamped claims.
Cache templates, retrieval hits, and deterministic responses (low temperature).
Use speculative decoding (draft + verifier) to make large models feel instant.
Route by uncertainty: small/fast handles the bulk; large handles the long tail.
Operate dashboards on $/outcome, adherence, citation P/R, latency percentiles, and escalation mix.
Publish a monthly “cost & quality note” that lists the top three levers pulled (e.g., compression bounds, routing threshold, new adapter) and the dollar impact per outcome. This ritual keeps optimization disciplined and evidence-based.
Worked Mini-Cases
Healthcare: Symptom Education (Non-Diagnostic)
Model: Private 3–7B SLM with thin format tuning; large GFM for rare escalations.
Contract: Education only, no diagnosis/prescriptions, red-flag triage, JSON schema.
Retrieval: Guidelines filtered by jurisdiction and freshness; minimal-span citations.
Metric Focus: Abstention quality, citation precision, p95 latency < 1.2s, zero unsafe terms.
Result: Reliable guidance with audit-ready provenance and low cost.
Add a pre-prompt red-flag screen that bypasses the model and shows static emergency guidance when matched. You’ll reduce latency, risk, and token spend simultaneously.
Banking: Fee Explanation & Anomaly Triage
Model: Tailored SLM for statements; GFM on escalation.
Contract: Never invent balances; prefer ledger + fee schedule; tool-only writes; idempotency keys.
Retrieval: Policy-aware index of fees/disclosures; transaction claims from ledger read replicas.
Metric Focus: Grounded accuracy, no implied writes, $/outcome.
Result: Consistent, explainable answers; safe proposals for freeze/limit-change via tool calls.
Track “implied write” violations as a first-class metric. If the rate ever spikes, automatically switch the route to a stricter persona variant while you investigate.
Legal: Clause Extraction & Risk Tagging
Model: SLM with LoRA heads for clause taxonomy; GFM for novel reasoning.
Contract: Quote clauses with line references; surface conflicts (versions) without harmonizing.
Retrieval: Contract vault with versioning & jurisdiction tags.
Metric Focus: Citation recall, false-positive rate, reviewer time saved.
Result: Faster document review with verifiable quotes and lower rework.
Introduce reviewer-in-the-loop hotkeys: accept, edit, or reject with a reason code. Feed these back as supervised examples—the fastest path to compound accuracy gains.
Implementation Blueprint
Contracts as Code: Short, versioned JSON with policies, schema, abstention thresholds; SemVer + changelogs.
Context Shaping: Turn docs into claim objects {id, text, effective_date, tier, url}; deduplicate & normalize entities.
Validators: Pre-display checks for schema, safety terms, citation coverage, uncertainty bounds.
Tool Router: Typed args, idempotency, approvals for writes; record proposal → decision → effect.
CI & Canary: Pack replays gate merges; canary 5–10% with auto-rollback on adherence/citation/latency breaches.
Keep these modules independent and swappable. When the contract, shaper, or router can be upgraded without touching the others, model changes become routine operations rather than risky projects.
Common Pitfalls—and the Fix
Overstuffed context: Replace with atomic claims and tie-break rules (score → recency → tier).
Encoding facts in weights: Fine-tune for format habits; keep mutable facts in retrieval.
No abstention path: Define required fields and uncertainty gates early.
Implied write actions: Require proposed tools; never textual confirmations.
Measuring tokens not outcomes: Switch to $/successful outcome and adherence dashboards.
Another subtle trap is “prompt drift”—well-meaning edits that bloat or contradict earlier rules. Protect yourself with prompt SemVer, diffs in PRs, and CI gates that replay golden traces before any change reaches users.
Conclusion
“Model choice” is only part of domain success. The durable gains come from a domain-first stack: a compact, testable prompt contract, policy-aware retrieval with timestamps and citations, thin adaptation for format and jargon, guarded tool use, and outcome-based evaluation. Start with a hybrid portfolio, prove value on golden traces, and let routing and costs adapt as you learn. When domain context, controls, and metrics are first-class, you’ll find that smaller, tailored models deliver outsized results—reliably, safely, and at a price you can scale.
Treat the system like any critical service: version everything, observe everything, and keep rollback cheap. With those habits, your domain models become dependable infrastructure—quietly compounding advantages month after month.