FICTIONAL DATA ONLY · CLINIC WORKFLOW VALIDATION
Prove the workflow, not just the features.
Compare Copilot-assisted and fully manual Canigenix workflows using the same fictional patient visits. Existing benchmark comparisons remain available for equivalent tasks. Record safety failures as carefully as speed.
Choose one consistent case
The case, instructions, and grading expectations stay identical across products.
Side-by-side results
Descriptive only. Compare only equivalent cases and endpoints. A full clinic workflow must never be compared directly to a note-only product.
Completed task comparison (choose identical cases)
| Platform | Completed core runs | Median time | Corrections | Unsupported claims | Critical errors | Avg. ease |
|---|
Individual evaluations
Exports contain only the fictional details entered here. Save them somewhere private if using reviewer codes.
| Case | Platform | Reviewer | Status | Time | Issues |
|---|
How we establish an advantage
Primary measures
Time to a review-ready note, number of corrections, missing required facts, unsupported clinical claims, and safety-critical errors.
Secondary measures
Ease of navigation, confidence, evidence traceability, and functionality not offered by every platform.
Safety gate
A critical error is a separate failure condition—not something faster task completion can compensate for.
Fair comparison
Compare identical cases with the same inputs and endpoints. Keep optional image-analysis testing separate from core SOAP workflow.
Acceptance criteria for the first fictional pilot
Before any real-clinic trial, require independent veterinarian review of outputs, zero unresolved safety-critical errors, verified patient/clinic isolation and permissions, demonstrated backup recovery, secure deployment, and realistic staff usability evidence. These thresholds are internal development gates, not evidence of clinical certification.
Recommended pilot sequence
Run each core case at least three times per platform with varied reviewer order, record failures honestly, and make a ranked list of the steps that caused the most delay or correction. Share aggregate findings, not private reviewer notes, with potential partners.
Practice-management integration readiness
The current visit CSV handoff is useful for testing, but it is not the same as direct synchronization. Our first integration requires a clinic-chosen PIMS and authorized access to its supported interface.
Inbound
Patient identifiers, appointment/visit records, clinician assignment, and prior history—with reconciliation rather than blind duplication.
Outbound
Approved SOAP note and exports only. Drafts, unreviewed AI findings, and speculative image differentials must not sync automatically.
Identity and audit
Idempotent updates, retry and conflict handling, audit entries, access controls, and explicit user confirmation before sending data.
First partner decision
Ask the first participating clinic which PIMS it actually uses and whether that vendor provides authorized test/sandbox access.
No external PIMS is connected by this Pilot Lab update. This page is an implementation checklist, not a claim of integration or HIPAA/privacy compliance.