Health-GPT CAIHL draft report

Health-GPT: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

Health-GPT offers patient-directed record comprehension and preparation. Readable FAQ and privacy material support a qualified assessment. The terms could not be retrieved, and the earlier app-store discrepancy remains historical.

Scope and agency posture

Omni Timeline LLC's patient record-comprehension and visit-preparation app, not other similarly named GPT products. Preserve August 15 baseline 80.

Posture: Potentially agency-expanding, with vendor-opacity and disclosure caveats.

Axis: 80/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

Sources and documented findings

• The current homepage and now-readable FAQ describe upload, timeline, multilingual questions and exclusion of user-marked private entries from answer generation. They frame the tool as preparation and information and say it is not designed for pregnancy or mental health.

• After an initial retrieval failure, following the site's own link recovered the privacy policy. It states no sale, advertising or training on personal data, automated processing by service providers under agreements, content retention until deletion, up to 30 days for technical logs and account/data deletion within seven days. Provider names and correction/export rights are still absent.

• The linked terms again returned 404. The August App Store privacy-label discrepancy was not newly checked and remains a historical unresolved finding.

Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: Patients select records, questions and excluded entries. The exclusion control is meaningful, but it controls answer context rather than proving that an upload was never processed or retained. Generated timeline correction remains unestablished.

Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Visit-question preparation can support the patient's own reasoning and participation. A readable timeline must remain checkable against original documents, especially for dates and medications. Deleting an entry is not the same as correcting an extraction.

Informed control

Editorial assessment: Current policy statements support the existing qualified assessment but leave the processing parties and usable exit formats unclear. The newly readable FAQ resolves a retrieval gap without validating clinical behavior.

Assessment and limits

The patient-directed design and unresolved verification conditions remain consistent with the baseline. Keep the posture and number, refresh the policy evidence and stop treating the FAQ as unreadable.

Confidence: Low to medium for public design and policy, low for implementation.

Remaining uncertainty: Output correction, export, named processors, operative terms, current store label and extraction quality remain unresolved.

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: 2026-08-15. Historical assessment. Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.