AI + Human Review
Human QC & Validation
Every AI Entry Checked Against Source
A senior reviewer carefully validates the AI’s output page by page, corrects what it misread, and adds critical context it could not reliably infer.
PAGE-BY-PAGE
review
SENIOR REVIEWER
validation
SOURCE-CITED
output
SOURCE CHECK
PAGE 214 / 412
P. 214 · OP REPORT
Procedure date confirmed against source
VERIFIED
P. 267 · HANDWRITTEN
Provider name misread — corrected
CORRECTED
P. 301 · POOR SCAN
Dosage recovered from margin note
ADDED
P. 388 · INTAKE
Referral chain matched to source
VERIFIED
PAGES CHECKED
412 / 412
REVIEWER SIGN-OFF
COMPLETEd
VALIDATION
What validation
actually involves
The reviewer works with the AI draft on one side and the original record on the other. Each entry is confirmed against its source page.
Where the AI misread a handwritten note or transposed a date, the reviewer corrects it at the source rather than annotating around it.
02 — BEYOND THE CHECK
What gets added,
not just checked
Verification is only half the pass.
The reviewer also adds what a model cannot reliably produce.
01
Treatment gaps
The significance of a gap in treatment — not just that one exists.
02
Prior conditions
The relevance of a prior condition to the injury in question.
03
Conflicting notes
The contradiction between two providers’ notes on the same event.
04
Case-specific detail
The detail that matters for this case, rather than in general.
DELIVERABLES
What you get
Five things land on your desk with every manually built file.
01
Line-by-line verification against the original record
02
Corrections applied directly, not appended as a change log
03
Clinical and billing context added where the case calls for it
04
Gaps and contradictions flagged by someone who read the full file
05
