# Nabla: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

Nabla gives clinicians and healthcare organizations control over documentation, coding, and retention settings. Patient access, refusal, and correction depend on the deployment. Earlier consent and training assurances were not fully reverified in this pass.

## Scope and agency posture

Nabla's clinician-controlled ambient documentation, dictation, and coding workflows within provider organizations. Patient-impacting institutional AI.

Posture: **Mixed**.

Axis: 40/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

## Sources and documented findings

- The [current product homepage](https://www.nabla.com/) places note customization and final coding decisions with clinicians and advertises organization-configurable retention.

- The [public Trust Center](https://trust.nabla.com/) says audio is not stored by default, notes are retained 14 days subject to client configuration, and optional clinician feedback may contain de-identified data. Its model card and audit documents require requests and were not accessed.

- The prior product and patient-consent URLs returned non-retryable access errors. A single homepage follow-up confirmed the current function, but not the old consent wording.

## Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: Clinicians and organizations choose the workflow and retention settings. A patient may benefit without controlling the note's purpose, final content, or coding. The evidence supports this allocation, not a judgment from vendor ownership.

## Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Reviewed documentation may improve later understanding, but no direct patient mechanism to inspect or contest generated notes was established. Coding traceability for clinicians is not automatically patient-accessible.

## Informed control

Editorial assessment: Concrete retention and hosting disclosures are useful. The baseline's no-training-on-notes and consent claims were not fully reverified and should remain dated claims rather than universal guarantees.

## Assessment and limits

Mixed remains appropriate. Available governance documentation supports conditional safeguards but does not show transfer of final authority to patients.

Confidence: Medium for institutional deployment and retention statements, low for patient-facing rights.

Remaining uncertainty: Current consent guidance, no-training promise scope, local refusal alternatives, transcript access, and patient correction mechanisms.

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: 2026-06-08. [Historical assessment](https://github.com/hugooc/HugoScore/blob/7e0ba68fae543832fe5f19009448e473983f48a9/site/reports/nabla-caihl-report.md). Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.