Moving our QA scoring logic over from Zendesk’s custom survey fields to Genesys Cloud’s evaluation forms is throwing a 400 Bad Request on the /api/v2/quality/evaluationforms endpoint whenever we push a threshold greater than 85, even though the Node SDK 2.18.0 payload literally says {"threshold": 85.0, "pass_fail": true} and the US01 tenant is on the Q3 2024 patch. We’ve been bypassing the validation by dropping the config into a JSON file and uploading it through the Admin UI instead, which sidesteps the SDK parser entirely like that older community thread about bulk evaluation imports breaking on decimal points, but WFM scheduling rules start failing the next morning if the form doesn’t sync properly so you’ll need to patch shift bid parameters manually to keep agents from getting stuck in the unassigned bucket. Console shows the form ID as active but the scoring matrix stays empty, and GET /api/v2/quality/evaluations returns a blank scores array.
The 400 error on /api/v2/quality/evaluationforms usually hits when the schema validator catches a mismatch in the threshold field type or the pass_fail boolean nesting. The Node SDK 2.18.0 wraps that value inside a threshold_config object instead of exposing it at the root level. You’ll want to restructure the payload like this:
{
"name": "Shift Bid QA",
"threshold_config": {
"threshold": 85.0,
"pass_fail": true,
"weight": 1.0
}
}
Architect’s evaluation form modules expect that exact nesting when pulling from Data Tables or external webhooks. If you’re pushing raw JSON straight into a secure flow, the parser drops anything outside threshold_config and throws a validation exception.
Are you mapping this through a Data Action or dropping it directly into an HTTP module? The routing makes a difference here. Also, check if the form versioning is set to draft before the push. Genesys locks the schema once it hits published, which forces the API to reject threshold overrides.
You can bypass the strict check by setting strict_validation: false in the request header, but that’s messy. Better to align the payload structure with the v2 schema. The admin UI actually hides this nesting. Direct POST calls just fail because of it.
Double check the weight field too. Leaving it out triggers the same 400.
The root cause of the 400 response stems from the schema validator expecting the threshold value nested inside a threshold_config wrapper object instead of sitting at the root level. The Node SDK 2.18.0 doesn’t serialize the request like the raw REST spec, so sending {"threshold": 85.0} bypasses the internal type check and triggers a validation failure. Restructuring the JSON payload to match the expected hierarchy resolves the handshake error.
{
"name": "Shift Bid QA",
"threshold_config": {
"threshold": 85.0,
"pass_fail": true
}
}
When the threshold crosses 85, it’s the API that enforces strict float precision. Dropping it into a raw integer or omitting the decimal places causes the backend parser to reject the request. The pass_fail flag also needs to live inside that same threshold_config block, not alongside it. Once the wrapper object is in place, the POST /api/v2/quality/evaluationforms call routes correctly through the quality service. Testing this against a local mock server showed the error vanishes immediately after the schema alignment. The Android SDK handles this nesting automatically when you build the request through EvaluationFormRequest.builder(), but manual JSON construction skips the serialization step. You’ll want to verify the threshold_config nesting before pushing to production. The endpoint drops the request immediately if the schema misses that wrapper.
Cause: The validation engine rejects the raw number because the SDK structure changed. The suggestion above regarding the wrapper object holds true. The system expects the threshold_config wrapper. The schema check fails hard without it. The WEM module pulls this config during the shift bid calculation. If the payload structure mismatches, the bid window closes early. This breaks the WFM logic and agents can’t bid for shifts properly.
Solution: Wrap the threshold in the config object as shown here.
{
"threshold_config": {
"threshold": 90,
"pass_fail": true
}
}
High QA thresholds like ninety usually hurt containment metrics. Agents rush calls instead of routing to the IVR path for complex queries. The creative flow design relies on agents accepting the transfer from the speech node. Shift coverage drops when the bid fails. The IVR containment target of sixty-five percent becomes impossible. The JSON fix resolves the API block. Process design needs review too.
Placing the threshold_config parameter inside the wrapper resolved the 400 error. How do I confirm the new pass-fail thresholds sync correctly with the workforce planning module? The platform won’t reject the shift bids now. The follow-up procedure isn’t clear.