- Open the dashboard.
- Say: "AuditTrace is synthetic only. It is not medical advice and does not claim compliance. The point is the reliability layer around AI audits."
- Point to the workflow: versioned question sets, deterministic checks, mock narrative checks, evidence validation, fail-closed findings, eval metrics.
- Open Documents.
- Select
ABA 97155 missing rationale synthetic note 001. - Run audit with
aba-97155-v1. - Open the audit detail page.
- Show the evidence-backed
protocol_change_rationalefinding. - Show the real audit log timeline.
- Open Evals and run eval in mock mode.
- Point to
unsupported_finding_rateandevidence_span_match_rate.
- Start on Dashboard.
- Explain the disclaimer: synthetic data only, no real PHI, no medical advice, no HIPAA compliance claim, not affiliated with Brellium.
- Open Question Sets.
- Show that
aba-97155hasv1andv2. - Open Documents and choose
ABA 97155 missing rationale synthetic note 001. - Run audit with
aba-97155-v1. - On Audit Detail, show:
- summary counts
- audit log timeline
- deterministic checks
- mock narrative findings
- validated evidence quote with character offsets
- Return to Documents and choose
Adversarial invalid evidence synthetic note 001. - Run audit with
aba-97155-v1. - Show the
insufficient_evidencedowngrade and explain that invalid evidence was stored but not trusted. - Open Evals.
- Run eval in mock mode.
- Explain that high scores are expected because the mock runner and seeded expectations are deterministic; the point is that metrics are real and persisted.
- "The current narrative runner is mock-only. It is shaped like a future structured LLM path, but it does not call an external API."
- "All notes are synthetic and generated for demo reliability testing."
- "This is not a clinical correctness system."
- "There is no auth, EMR integration, billing, or patient management."
- "The next step would be a larger labeled synthetic corpus and real structured-output model mode behind the same evidence validator."