Patient care navigation and health copilot AI
RTHM
RTHM documents controls to dismiss suspected diagnoses and delete conversations. These provide practical ways to redirect the service, with deletion exceptions and model-use conditions still relevant. Clinical interpretation and underlying record correction remain separate questions.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 70 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Patient complex-illness intelligence platform, with optional record exchange and separate paid clinical services.
Potentially agency-expanding, with vendor-funnel and data-use caveats
RTHM documents controls to dismiss suspected diagnoses and delete conversations. These provide practical ways to redirect the service, with deletion exceptions and model-use conditions still relevant. Clinical interpretation and underlying record correction remain separate questions.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Organizing history and preparing questions can strengthen patient action. Profile correction is now documented, although source-linked review of every roadmap recommendation remains unverified.
Practical roadmap editing, source provenance, consent clarity and paid-care recommendation influence remain unverified
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
The ability to dismiss a suspected diagnosis is substantive control over the platform's representation of the patient. Optional HIE participation and care-team sharing provide further choices.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Organizing history and preparing questions can strengthen patient action. Profile correction is now documented, although source-linked review of every roadmap recommendation remains unverified.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
The FAQ explains reciprocal HIE exchange and its alternative. Training and derivative-use permissions remain material conditions despite simplified no-sale wording.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
The FAQ explains reciprocal HIE exchange and its alternative. Training and derivative-use permissions remain material conditions despite simplified no-sale wording.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
Practical roadmap editing, source provenance, consent clarity and paid-care recommendation influence 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
Practical roadmap editing, source provenance, consent clarity and paid-care recommendation influence 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 published controls and terms (AI-assisted draft)