No Barrier CAIHL draft report

No Barrier: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

No Barrier provides institution-purchased medical interpretation. Its terms allow deletion or anonymization and continuing derivative-data uses, while its security page makes broader deletion and no-repurposing promises. Patient alternatives and correction remain deployment-dependent.

Scope and agency posture

Institution-purchased medical interpretation used directly with patients. The July 20 baseline is 43, Mixed, institution-led language-access aid.

Posture: Mixed, institution-led language-access aid.

Axis: 43/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

Sources and documented findings

• Current terms require customers to offer another method and verify results. They allow perpetual improvement use of anonymized, de-identified or pseudonymized information and sale of anonymous aggregate summary data. Identifiable material may be deleted OR anonymized within seven days. The BAA takes precedence for PHI, but was not reviewed.

• The current security page still promises deletion of encounter content after seven days without exceptions, backups or archives and no training, repurposing or sale. The interpretation page allows a different retention agreement and describes visual aids, bilingual discharge summaries and human interpreters for emotional situations. Those statements are not fully reconciled.

Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: Language access can let patients express goals and challenge care decisions. The organization selects and configures the platform. A contractual alternative is meaningful, but it does not establish that a patient can trigger it promptly or correct a disputed translation afterward.

Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Visual explanation and bilingual notes may improve comprehension. Patient-accessible comparison with source speech, qualified review of important summaries and a durable correction route remain unestablished by this pass.

Informed control

Editorial assessment: The concrete distinction between deletion and anonymization matters to informed participation. Broad no-repurposing messaging does not explain surviving derivative-data permissions or which agreement controls a particular encounter.

Assessment and limits

Keep the institution-led mixed judgment but revise retention wording around the current terms, rather than implying all encounter material is erased. The inconsistency is evidence of incomplete disclosure, not proof of improper processing.

Confidence: Medium for published conditions, low for encounter-level implementation.

Remaining uncertainty: Patient notice, refusal experience, interpreter escalation, deployment-specific BAA and derivative-data handling were not observed.

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: 2026-07-20. Historical assessment. Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.