Human review needed: Dataset v0.2.5 limited reconstruction coding outputs

[ClinicBrain-ai]

Purpose

Dataset v0.2.5 completed limited dry-run reconstruction coding for ABS-001 and ABS-002 only.

This issue requests human post-coding review before any second-coder repeat, coding revision, abstraction expansion, or Dataset v0.2 continuation.

This is not clinical validation. This is not clinical guidance. The coding outputs are educational methodology artifacts for evaluating whether the reconstruction workflow remains interpretable, source-distant, and safe enough to continue.

Review Packet

• Post-coding review handoff
• Reviewer instructions
• ABS-001 coding
• ABS-002 coding
• Results table
• Transformation summary
• Coding memo
• ABS-001 coding review form
• ABS-002 coding review form
• Cross-case review form
• Post-coding gate decision template

Review Checklist Summary

Please verify:

• coding used only ABS-001 and ABS-002;
• no source case text was inspected, copied, or quoted;
• no patient-identifying information was introduced;
• no clinical guidance was created;
• coding outputs are interpretable;
• coding categories and rubric scores are justified;
• uncertainty and missing evidence are handled cautiously;
• the remaining 8 candidates should remain on hold unless a documented decision authorizes a next step.

Decision Options

• remain closed pending more review
• open for second-coder repeat of ABS-001 and ABS-002 only
• open for revision of ABS-001 / ABS-002 coding only
• open for a small next abstraction batch
• remain closed and revise the abstraction method
• remain closed and revise the coding framework

Current Gate Status

Post-coding gate status remains closed pending post-coding review.

The remaining 8 candidates remain on hold until review is complete and the gate decision is documented.

[ClinicBrain-ai]

Dataset v0.2.6 Post-Coding Human Review Decision

Reviewer: human reviewer
Review date: 2026-05-31
Issue: #2

Decision Summary

I reviewed the Dataset v0.2.5 limited dry-run coding outputs for ABS-001 and ABS-002 only.

Decision:

• ABS-001: keep coding output for dry-run purposes; accept with caution.
• ABS-002: keep coding output for dry-run purposes; accept with caution.
• Cross-case decision: outputs are interpretable enough to support one controlled next step.
• Gate status: open for 2 additional cases only.

This decision does not authorize expansion to the remaining 8 candidates as a full batch.

This decision does not authorize Research Note 002.

This decision does not authorize clinical use, clinical validation claims, clinical guidance, source-text copying, or patient-identifying information.

---

Materials Reviewed

Reviewed only the Dataset v0.2.5 coding review packet:

• case-coding/ABS-001-coding.md
• case-coding/ABS-002-coding.md
• results-table.md
• transformation-summary.md
• coding-memo.md
• limited-boundaries.md
• post-coding-review-checklist.md
• post-coding-review-gate.md
• post-coding review forms and gate decision template

Materials not used:

• source case reports
• source images, figures, tables, captions, or copied source passages
• external clinical references
• additional candidate abstractions
• any remaining 8 candidate source material

---

Scope and Safety Findings

• Review stayed limited to ABS-001 and ABS-002.
• No source case text was inspected, copied, quoted, or used.
• No patient-identifying information was added.
• No clinical recommendations were added.
• No abstraction content was modified.
• No new coding was performed.
• No additional cases were abstracted.
• Coding outputs remain framed as educational / methodological dry-run artifacts only.
• Coding outputs are not clinical validation.
• Coding outputs are not clinical guidance.
• Dataset v0.1 and Analysis v0.1 remain untouched.

---

ABS-001 Review

Decision: keep coding output for dry-run purposes; accept with caution.

Assessment:

• Interpretability: acceptable for dry-run purposes.
• Source-distance / safety: acceptable.
• Category fit: acceptable.
• Rubric usefulness: acceptable, with limits from intentional abstraction thinness.

Findings:

ABS-001 remains useful for testing:

• mechanism substitution
• delegation
• compression
• treatment-intent preservation
• missing evidentiary detail handling

The coding output preserves the distinction between localized concern, differential uncertainty, mechanism clarification, and staged downstream reasoning. The main limitation is that the abstraction intentionally omits specific evidence, chronology, measurements, and source-detail richness. This limits fine-grained confidence but does not make the coding output unusable for dry-run methodology testing.

Recommended action for ABS-001:

• keep coding output unchanged
• do not recode at this step
• do not modify ABS-001.md
• use caution in any later summary, especially avoiding clinical-validation language

---

ABS-002 Review

Decision: keep coding output for dry-run purposes; accept with caution.

Assessment:

• Interpretability: acceptable for dry-run purposes.
• Source-distance / safety: acceptable.
• Category fit: acceptable, especially for compression and uncertainty-loss-risk testing.
• Rubric usefulness: acceptable but more limited than ABS-001.

Findings:

ABS-002 remains useful for testing:

• compression
• uncertainty preservation
• uncertainty-loss risk
• diagnostic / risk reframing
• introduced downstream cognition
• thin treatment-intent scoring

The output is interpretable as a methodological artifact. The main concern is that treatment intent is intentionally thin and the abstraction is too generalized for fine-grained treatment-intent analysis. This is a limitation to document, not a reason to discard the output at this stage.

Recommended action for ABS-002:

• keep coding output unchanged
• do not recode at this step
• do not modify ABS-002.md
• continue to mark treatment-intent scoring as lower-confidence / thinner than other dimensions

---

Cross-Case Review

Cross-case decision: the two-case coding pass is interpretable enough to support a limited next step, but not broad v0.2 expansion.

Findings:

• Both cases produced interpretable coding outputs.
• Both remained source-distant and non-guidance.
• Both showed preservation, compression, delegation, new cognition, and missing cognition.
• The rubric produced some meaningful distinction between cases:
  • ABS-001 is more useful for mechanism substitution and treatment-intent preservation.
  • ABS-002 is more useful for compression versus uncertainty-loss-risk testing.
• The framework is useful enough for a controlled expansion, but not yet mature enough to open the full remaining 8.

Main ambiguities:

• boundary between compression and uncertainty-loss risk
• thin treatment-intent scoring when abstractions intentionally omit clinical detail
• risk that downstream organizing cognition could be over-interpreted if future outputs are not carefully framed as methodological only

Recommended cross-case action:

• proceed to a small next abstraction/coding batch only
• limit the next batch to exactly 2 additional cases
• keep the remaining candidates on hold beyond that limited batch
• require another documented gate after the 2 additional cases before any broader expansion

---

Gate Decision

Selected gate status:

open for 2 additional cases only

Authorized next:

• Select exactly 2 additional candidates for the next controlled Dataset v0.2 step.
• Keep the same educational, non-clinical, privacy-safe, copyright-safe, source-distant boundaries.
• Continue to avoid source-text copying, source quotation, patient-identifying information, and clinical guidance.
• After the 2 additional cases, require another human review gate before any further expansion.

Not authorized:

• no expansion to the remaining 8 as a full batch
• no full Dataset v0.2 coding
• no Research Note 002
• no clinical validation claims
• no clinical guidance
• no source case text copying or quotation
• no patient-identifying information
• no modification of ABS-001.md
• no modification of ABS-002.md
• no release creation
• no repository visibility changes

Remaining 8 candidates:

The remaining 8 candidates are not authorized as a full batch. Only 2 additional cases are authorized for the next limited step. All candidates beyond that 2-case limited expansion remain on hold pending another documented review gate.

Research Note 002:

Research Note 002 may not begin yet. It should remain blocked until the limited 2-additional-case step is completed and a later human gate explicitly authorizes synthesis or note-writing.

Final decision:

Proceed with a controlled limited expansion to 2 additional cases only. Keep all broader expansion gates closed.