The problem
Understanding a case can mean piecing together notes written at different times, by different people, for different purposes. A plan can look like a completed arrangement when its context is lost.
What I built
A workspace that brings source documents, workflow findings, and review notes together. Visitors can advance through a fictional case and inspect the evidence behind a finding.
The underlying Python application uses deterministic rules. This public demonstration replays prepared outputs from that application. Source inspection and review annotations remain interactive.
Three decisions that matter
- Keep chronology visible. Each stage includes only the documents available at that point.
- Show the source. Findings link to the original notes so the interpretation can be inspected.
- Separate review from resolution. Marking an item reviewed does not complete the underlying work.
A mistake worth testing
A future condition is not a confirmation.
One fictional note said to initiate authorization when an accepting facility was confirmed. The engine initially interpreted that instruction as a current confirmation.
Testing traced the result to that source, defined the expected behavior, and checked the repair against both conditional wording and actual confirmations. The case now keeps referral and authorization work in progress.
Try it
Choose Start walkthrough. Advance from Admission through Planning, open an unresolved item, and follow its source. Add a review note to see how an annotation stays separate from the engine’s finding.
Open the fictional replay ↗Fictional cases only. This prototype demonstrates workflow reasoning and tested software behavior; it does not establish clinical validation or readiness for patient care. The full local engine is available for a live walkthrough.