Clinical decision support
OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence’s historical profile describes clinician-controlled evidence and Visits workflows. Current official pages could not be retrieved in the September reassessment. The historical score is preserved provisionally, without treating the failed retrieval as a fresh confirmation or an agency penalty.
Current verification incomplete. The September 8 assessment records access limitations. The earlier 2026-06-10 evidence has not been freshly confirmed.
Summary judgment · 18 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Clinician evidence and Visits workflows described in the June baseline. Current public verification was blocked.
Institution-directed, patient-affecting
OpenEvidence’s historical profile describes clinician-controlled evidence and Visits workflows. Current official pages could not be retrieved in the September reassessment. The historical score is preserved provisionally, without treating the failed retrieval as a fresh confirmation or an agency penalty.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Historical source-grounded answers may strengthen clinician reasoning and patient materials. Whether patients receive inspectable sources or can challenge the generated context remains unverified.
All current patient-facing controls and policy changes remain unverified after the bounded access failures
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
The historical deployment places the clinician in control of questions, context and outputs. Nothing newly recovered establishes direct patient control, but blocked access cannot establish its absence.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Historical source-grounded answers may strengthen clinician reasoning and patient materials. Whether patients receive inspectable sources or can challenge the generated context remains unverified.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
Advertising separation, patient notice, refusal and correction need deployment evidence. Previously stated privacy protections must retain their June provenance.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
Advertising separation, patient notice, refusal and correction need deployment evidence. Previously stated privacy protections must retain their June provenance.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
All current patient-facing controls and policy changes remain unverified after the bounded access failures
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
- https://www.openevidence.com/user-guide/visits-overview
- https://www.openevidence.com/policies/privacy
- https://www.openevidence.com/
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
All current patient-facing controls and policy changes remain unverified after the bounded access failures 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.
Current verification incomplete · Low for present deployment, moderate for the frozen historical scope (AI-assisted draft)