Epic Emmie (incl. Ask Emmie) CAIHL draft report

Epic Emmie (incl. Ask Emmie): CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

Epic Emmie combines direct patient record questions with health-system control of available actions. Sutter’s published version cannot schedule, message, or update the chart. Its chat-visibility rules do not establish an absence of retention or secondary processing.

Scope and agency posture

Epic's patient-facing MyChart AI family, with a focused current check of the Epic catalog and Sutter deployment. The July 21 baseline is 38, Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing. Reid details remain July evidence.

Posture: Mixed, institution-led and directly patient-facing.

Axis: 38/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

Sources and documented findings

• Epic's current Emmie catalog describes chart questions, immediate imaging summaries, simplified visit instructions, billing actions and scheduling outcomes. These are offered capabilities and vendor-reported operational results, not proof of universal deployment or patient benefit.

• Sutter's current patient FAQ describes questions and summaries, excludes scheduling, care-team messaging and chart updates, and limits context to information visible under existing patient or proxy permissions. It says providers cannot see chat logs and logs are outside the legal medical record. It offers feedback reviewed for improvement and care-team escalation, without specifying retention, export or a required individual correction process.

Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: Patients can initiate questions about their own chart and choose what to ask. The health system sets available actions and context. Sutter's explicit inability to write to the chart also means patient challenges need a separate record-correction process.

Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Record explanations and follow-up questions can support patients' reasoning. Feedback is useful but does not promise resolution of a disputed answer. Immediate summaries merit source and uncertainty visibility, which these pages do not establish in use.

Informed control

Editorial assessment: Sutter gives concrete visibility and proxy boundaries, but provider invisibility is not evidence of absent server retention or secondary use. Catalog claims must remain separate from each health system's rules.

Assessment and limits

The baseline already captures the important split between direct patient utility and institutional authority. Current Sutter and Epic materials support it. No numerical change is justified by this bounded pass.

Confidence: Medium for current catalog and Sutter scope.

Remaining uncertainty: Production models, processing, retention, deletion, automatic-summary choices and correction outcomes remain unknown. The earlier pre-release study and Reid deployment were not newly validated.

Published documentation is evidence of stated conditions, not proof of actual implementation. Unknowns did not receive automatic negative points. Funding, sponsorship, and public code do not determine agency by themselves.

Review provenance

• Reviewer/model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6.
• Method: Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
• Human review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
• Earlier review: 2026-07-21. Historical assessment. Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.