Symptom assessment AI
Ada Health
Ada’s direct assessments differ from partner-controlled sharing and decisions. Its US policy describes consented health-derived marketing segments. Removing an existing segment requires a separate request, beyond changing the consent setting.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 66 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Direct Ada assessment, partner-embedded Assess, and US advertising-segment consent must be distinguished.
Mixed, potentially agency-expanding
Ada’s direct assessments differ from partner-controlled sharing and decisions. Its US policy describes consented health-derived marketing segments. Removing an existing segment requires a separate request, beyond changing the consent setting.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Reports support reflection and action. Correcting personal data and contesting an institution's consequential decision are separate routes, and actual report-level revision remains untested.
In-app consent comprehension, report correction and partner alternatives remain unverified
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
Direct assessment can support self-directed care seeking. Mandatory sharing in some integrations is an actual deployment condition, while partner routing decisions are not attributable to every consumer assessment.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Reports support reflection and action. Correcting personal data and contesting an institution's consequential decision are separate routes, and actual report-level revision remains untested.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
The separate segment-removal action materially affects meaningful withdrawal. Pseudonymization should not be described as the absence of health-derived commercial targeting.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
The separate segment-removal action materially affects meaningful withdrawal. Pseudonymization should not be described as the absence of health-derived commercial targeting.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
In-app consent comprehension, report correction and partner alternatives remain unverified
Who evaluated this?
AI-assisted public-source draft
Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.
Sources checked
Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.
Review provenance
Criteria
CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.
Reviewer
AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.
AI / model
OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
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.
Review date
2026-09-08
Limitations
In-app consent comprehension, report correction and partner alternatives remain unverified No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.
Review 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.
AI-assisted draft · Moderate for policy distinctions (AI-assisted draft)