Health consultation
In plain words: Health: one health question
How Health reviews one bounded health question against the reviewed profile and proposes next diagnostic steps without declaring a diagnosis.
- 1Emergency rules are checked first; no match is not a safety guarantee.
- 2Proposals list explanations, contradictions, gaps and the professional role required.
- 3Test results return through record import and open a new case revision.
health.review_case@1 answers one bounded health question against exact profile and source
revisions. The useful result may be a clearer history, a set of plausible explanations, the next
discriminating observation or test to discuss with a clinician, or an honest stop.
Open one case
HealthCase@1 binds the person's reviewed profile revision, question, symptom onset and course,
patient testimony, available measurements and records, unavailable evidence, purpose, urgency,
decision role, jurisdiction or provider context when relevant, and time and privacy bounds. It
does not absorb the whole profile by default. The patient reviews the case summary before it is
used or disclosed.
The consultation first checks declared emergency and escalation rules. A matched red flag returns an emergency handoff with the triggering evidence and uncertainty. No match means only that the finite check did not match; it is not clearance, monitoring, or a guarantee that waiting is safe.
Propose diagnostic work without manufacturing a diagnosis
The review keeps observations, assertions, hypotheses, and established external diagnoses separate. It can summarize supporting and contradicting evidence, ask focused questions, and rank candidate explanations only under a pinned knowledge and policy revision. Missing evidence and limits accompany every rank. Popularity, model confidence, and a clean-looking OCR result do not establish a diagnosis.
Record the proposed next step in DiagnosticProposal@1, tied to the case and profile revisions.
Include candidate explanations, rationale, contradictions and information gaps, then describe the
proposed examination or test, prerequisites, burdens and risks, alternatives, expected
discriminating value, urgency, stop conditions, required professional role, and expiry.
The resulting proposal may call for self-observation, routine clinician discussion, urgent handoff, or an honest stop as an exact blocker, refusal, or unresolved case. It cannot itself order a test, certify necessity, interpret an unseen result, or promise access.
An accepted external test order remains the external clinician's act. A returned result enters through assimilation with its author and source intact, then opens a new case revision; it never silently settles an earlier hypothesis. Consultation can finish while the external diagnostic path remains pending.
Stopping and recovery
Conflicting identity, an unreviewed high-impact field, inadequate evidence, exhausted budget, unsupported population, unavailable qualified authority, or an emergency boundary can stop the case. A proposed next step requires its own exact approval when it would disclose data, spend money, create an appointment, order a test, or cause another effect.
Restart recovers the last committed case and proposal. A changed symptom, medication, allergy, source, profile, policy, or knowledge revision invalidates the affected pending proposal instead of borrowing its prior approval. Missing provider acknowledgement leaves the external action unknown and blocks blind retry.