Appendix E — AI ledger
Where AI was used to build this course, what it did, and who checked it. The course teaches students to disclose and verify AI use; this file is the course doing the same. It answers the ethicist’s last question in curriculum/personas.md, and is rendered as an appendix of the book.
Rule. Any commit where an AI tool drafted, rewrote, or verified content that students or adopters will read adds a row. Tooling that only formats or builds (Quarto, wrangler, CI) does not. “Human review” says what a person actually did, not that review happened.
Standing uses. Not logged per commit because they run every time:
| What | Tool | Human review |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting and editing of design files, modules, and chapters in this repo | Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1 and predecessors), pair-programming style: the author directs, the model drafts, the author edits and commits | Every file is read and edited by the author before commit. Citations are verified separately, below. |
Resolving @pmid: / @doi: citation keys into references.resolved.bib at render time |
quartobot (_quarto.yml pre-render) |
Resolution is a lookup against PubMed and Crossref, not generation. A key that does not resolve fails the render. |
| Drafting or revising many chapters at once: one agent per chapter, each in its own git worktree and branch, from one written brief; a coordinating agent merges the branches, runs one render, and writes the ledger row | Claude Code subagents (Claude Fable 5.1), used for the ten-chapter draft (2026-09-07), the plain-language, review, and mannered-prose passes (2026-09-08) | The author writes or approves the brief and reads the merged result in the deployed book. Each agent reports what it changed and what it could not check; the coordinator spot-checks the reports and the per-pass row says what was checked by script (numbers, citation keys, flags, figure ids, headings) rather than by a person |
Chat tutor over the rendered chapters (planned; see curriculum/chapter-pattern.md) |
Not yet built | Answer keys in _answers/ are held for the tutor and never rendered. Disclosure to students goes in the preface when it ships. |
Per-commit log. Newest first. Rows dated 2026-09-07 for the ten parallel-drafted chapters say the author had not yet read them; the author read the deployed book on 2026-09-08, before the plain-language pass, and the rows are left as written because they record what was true at that commit.
| Date | Artifact | What AI did | Human review |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-07 | appendix/resources.qmd (new section) |
Added “Your applications and your coursework”: the AMA News article on AI in residency applications (Sept 9, 2026) and the AAMC’s Principles for the Responsible Use of AI in Medical Education (v2.0, July 2025), the two gaps found in research/student-interests-survey-2026-10-07.md. Both pages were opened and their content checked; the AAMC entry says plainly that it is written for schools and does not set student rules. |
The author approved adding both. Not yet reviewed in place. |
| 2026-10-07 | course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md |
Rewrote the syllabus to the fall 2026 plan agreed with the author in conversation: week 1 taught live, weeks 2 to 4 with a Monday hour, a voted open lab, guest talks, Thursday resource log, and required Friday small groups; dates filled in; submission link left as a [VERIFY] flag. Recorded the decisions, enrolment, co-director roles, and the lifted guest cap in CONTEXT.md. |
Structure decided by the author. The author has not yet reviewed the wording. |
| 2026-10-07 | appendix/resources.qmd (new), _quarto.yml, one sentence in course/resource-log.qmd |
A subagent selected 36 starter resources from the 653 unique links students submitted to the resource log in 2024 and 2025 (student names and emails not read), grouped them by the book’s themes, and wrote one sentence each. 18 PMID keys checked in PubMed, 3 DOI keys through Crossref; videos and web pages opened and matched. Publisher pages that block bots (NEJM, JAMA) could not be checked for paywalls; three podcast lengths are not stated; these are listed in a comment at the end of the file. | The render resolved every citation key. The model spot-checked entries. The author has not yet reviewed the selection. |
| 2026-10-07 | appendix/open-labs.qmd |
Added two lab ideas drawn from the author’s October 2025 vibe-coding session deck (build the tool you wish existed; ask questions of a dataset in Colab) and an invitation to suggest labs. | Ideas come from the author’s own deck. Not yet reviewed. |
| 2026-10-07 | appendix/open-labs.qmd (one paragraph) |
Added NYU Langone’s Prompt-a-thon as the precedent for the open-lab format, citing Small et al. 2024 [pmid:39042600] for its survey finding (confidence rose with or without sample prompts), with the limit stated; linked the project-cards repository (no licence, so linked, not copied). | The author supplied the paper. The model checked the PMID’s metadata and abstract in PubMed; the abstract supports the sentence. |
| 2026-10-07 | appendix/open-labs.qmd (new), _quarto.yml, theme/textbook.scss |
Drafted an Open labs appendix at the author’s suggestion: a catalogue of self-contained, experience-focused labs for the class to vote on, with one written in full (an ambient-scribe lab on a made-up three-speaker visit: transcribe in Word for the web, draft the note with ChatGPT Edu or Copilot, sort the errors by step), three pointing to existing enrichment chapters, and six short ideas. Links NYU’s Prompt-a-Thon site from two ideas (no licence stated, so linked, not copied). Word for the web’s Transcribe was checked against university help pages (Aalto, Bowdoin); the lab has a fallback if it is switched off. The vote link is a [VERIFY] flag. |
The model rendered it and checked links and layout at desktop and phone width. The author has not yet reviewed the lab or tried the visit script. |
| 2026-10-07 | chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd (new subsection 11.3.1) |
Added “How a scribe turns a conversation into a note”: four steps (record, transcribe, summarize, sign) drawn in CSS, where each kind of error enters, why summarizing errors look right, and that UCHealth announced a systemwide Abridge rollout in February 2026, linked to the press release. | UCHealth’s use of Abridge was suggested by the author and confirmed by the model against the Business Wire release of 24 Feb 2026. The author has not yet reviewed the wording. |
| 2026-10-07 | course/patient-information.qmd, the BAA sentences in seven chapters (centaur-cyborg, ethics-regulation, agentic-coding, foundations, prompting-lab, environment, rag-notebooklm), CONTEXT.md |
Replaced “institutional accounts are not covered unless your institution says so” with the confirmed fact: ChatGPT Edu and Copilot are covered when signed in with university credentials, not through personal accounts. Kept the course rule (made-up patients only) and changed its stated reason to “the agreement covers patient care; this is coursework”. Added a sixth self-check on personal versus university accounts. | The coverage fact comes from the author (course director), 2026-10-07. The author has not yet reviewed the edited wording. |
| 2026-10-07 | course/patient-information.qmd (new), one link line in each of the ten “No patient information” callouts, course/syllabus.qmd, _quarto.yml |
Drafted a new unnumbered course page on what HIPAA protects, Safe Harbor’s identifiers, why the course rule is stricter, business associate agreements, patients versus workforce, and what to do after a slip, with five self-check questions on made-up patients. Legal statements were checked against the regulation text (45 CFR 160.103, 164.502(b), 164.514) on Cornell LII; HHS pages blocked the tool. CU Anschutz’s BAA status for ChatGPT Edu and Copilot was then confirmed by the author (row above); the reporting step names a general “patient privacy office” by the author’s choice, so the page carries over to other institutions. | The author has not yet reviewed. The CU-specific facts need the compliance or privacy office. |
| 2026-10-07 | chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd (one sentence) |
Softened “pasting a real patient’s labs into the tool is a privacy violation” to “can be an unauthorized disclosure”, because lab values alone may not be identifying; added that the student is not the one who decides, with a link to the new page. | The author has not yet reviewed. |
| 2026-10-07 | theme/self-check.html (new), theme/textbook.scss, _quarto.yml |
Wrote a self-check widget: ::: {.self-check} blocks in markdown become clickable questions that mark the answer and reveal an explanation. Nothing is stored or sent. Without JavaScript the block reads as plain text. |
The model tested it in a browser in light and dark mode: wrong answer, right answer, and Try again. |
| 2026-10-07 | theme/textbook.scss, styles.css |
Dark-mode fix after the author reported the chapter 2 templates were near invisible: plain fenced blocks rendered black text on the dark page; they now take the palette’s text colour on a tinted panel. Pinned one heading in the calculator mock-up. Presentation only. | The author found the bug on the live site. The model then checked text contrast on all 18 pages in dark mode in a browser (all at least 3.5:1). |
| 2026-10-07 | chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd (figures 9.1 and 9.4), styles.css, theme/textbook.scss |
Fixed overflow found while checking the new theme: [VERIFY] flags, long URLs, inline code, wide tables and comic images on phones. Found that both Mermaid bar charts in the workforce chapter misdrew their data: Mermaid starts bars at the axis minimum, so the BLS chart showed transcriptionists’ -4% as a positive bar and the NRMP chart (axis from 900) made an 8.6% rise look about tenfold. Redrew the BLS chart in CSS from the same three numbers with a zero line; changed the NRMP chart to lines and changed “bars” to “lines” in its alt text and caption, adding “The axis starts at 900.” No numbers changed. |
The model checked all 18 pages at 1456px and 400px for overflow in a browser and compared both charts with the numbers in the source. The author has not yet reviewed. |
| 2026-10-07 | theme/textbook.scss, theme/textbook-dark.scss, _quarto.yml, styles.css, two inline-styled boxes in chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd |
Replaced the stock cosmo theme with a modern-textbook theme in the direction the author chose (serif reading text, sans headings, warm paper, deep teal accent, week parts as sidebar groups, marked Watch/Do/Check headings, a dark mode). Pinned the text colour of the illustrative CSS boxes so they stay legible in dark mode. Presentation only: no wording changed. | The model rendered the book and checked light mode, dark mode, and a 400px phone width in a browser. The author has not yet reviewed it; the PR is not to be merged until they have. |
| 2026-09-08 | chapters/*.qmd (ten of eleven), _answers/core-appraisal.md, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md, _answers/enrichment-agentic-coding.md, _answers/enrichment-environment.md, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md |
Worked through the 45 open [VERIFY] flags in issue #52 with three research agents (literature, regulatory, media) that read primary sources where the tool could reach them: PubMed records and PMC full text, fda.gov pages and the AI-device CSV, statute text on the California and Texas legislature sites, the DailyMed label, CMS transmittals, podcast feeds and YouTube page data, phti.org and the PHTI PDF. Closed 25 flags; corrected six claims (the FDA device count, now 1,614 dated 4 Sept 2026; the CDS guidance date; the Texas laws, which are two statutes; the UCSF 5.8% figure, which is from a press release, the paper says 1.81 RVUs a week; the Emory/CHOA study, which is a small randomized trial, so claim 8 moved tiers; OpenEvidence, which does verify US medical students); added six citation keys after retrieving each record (Frutuoso Maia 2026; Neiman demand and supply projections; the NEJM AI automation-bias trial by DOI; two CAP eGFR adoption surveys) and dropped one that did not support its sentence. Twenty flags remain, each now dated and saying what a person still has to do (a paywalled or bot-blocked page, a login, a supplement) |
Author to read the corrected sentences, especially the UCSF and Emory ones, and to work the remaining list in the issue. The coordinator applied the agents’ proposed edits after reading their sources’ quoted text, not the sources themselves |
| 2026-09-08 | appendix/about.qmd, index.qmd, AI-LEDGER.md |
Ledger and appendices review (issue #26): added the parts restructure and the mannered-prose pass to the account of how the book was made, in the about page and the preface; earlier in the day added the standing-uses row for parallel per-chapter agents and the note on when the author read the parallel-drafted chapters. Checked that the personas appendix still includes curriculum/personas.md unchanged, that the about page points to reviews/ and the open-flag issue, and that every Human review cell states what a person did |
Author to read the two new paragraphs. The claim that the author read the deployed book on 2026-09-08 rests on the author’s request for the plain-language pass after reading it |
| 2026-09-08 | chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), index.qmd, course/*.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, CLAUDE.md, curriculum/chapter-pattern.md, one Check-row label in _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md |
Mannered-prose pass (issue #54), one agent per chapter plus one for the front and back matter, in parallel: inventoried metaphors, idioms, and set phrases and replaced each with the literal statement (about 400 replacements across the book; “earns its keep”, “load-bearing”, “a good commute”, “the other half”, “hand off”, “lever”, “get in the door”, “landing cold”), keeping a metaphor only where it is a chapter’s explained teaching device (the keyboard analogy, centaur and cyborg, the three-sentence spine, the context-window budget, the device line) or clinical idiom. Added the say-what-you-mean rule to CLAUDE.md and the chapter pattern. No number, citation key, [VERIFY] flag, figure or table id, image, URL, heading, or section order changed; each agent and the coordinator checked that by script. Headings and callout titles that still carry a metaphor were left and listed in the PR |
Author asked for the pass and supplied the rule; author to spot-read the deployed chapters. Each agent’s report lists its ten largest rewrites and what it kept; the coordinator read the reports, not every diff line |
| 2026-09-08 | _quarto.yml, course/syllabus.qmd, course/resource-log.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, index.qmd, exercises/weekly-resource-log.md, two chapter links |
Restructured the book into parts by week (issue #28): moved the student text and the four weekly chatbot prompts of the resource log from exercises/ into a rendered course page, wrote a short syllabus page, and moved the instructor directions, objectives, grading, delivery levels, module catalog, variants, session structure, and the guest-invitation shape (without local names) into a new instructors appendix, rewriting curriculum/schedule.md text to the plain-language standard rather than including it. Linked the two chapter Dos that count toward the log. No chapter text changed beyond those two links |
Author to read the three new pages. The resource-log text is the author’s own from exercises/, edited only for em-dashes and sentence length; the due-date cells are placeholders |
| 2026-09-08 | chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), index.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, GitHub issue #52 |
Cross-reference pass (issue #13), one agent over the whole book: turned every plain-text chapter mention into a link (56), unified block headings and the definitions of shared terms (proxy, register, automation bias, hallucination, the 2/1/0 scale, context window), named the three throughlines the same way everywhere, resolved duplicated material by giving each topic an owning chapter and a short version plus link elsewhere, marked repeated videos and Go deeper entries, added mermaid accessibility directives to all twelve diagrams, built the competency coverage table in the preface, rewrote the preface and the about page for the process as it ran, and filed the inventory of 45 open [VERIFY] flags as issue #52 |
Author to read the preface and about page, and the coverage table’s note that AIM-8 is no chapter’s subject. The coordinator fixed curriculum/schedule.md’s catalog row for the ethics chapter to carry AIM-X, which its assembly text and the chapter already did |
| 2026-09-08 | chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), _answers/*.md, reviews/*-2026-09-08.md, GitHub issues #27, #29, #32, #34–#37, #40, #41, #44, #49 |
Six-persona review pass (issue #12), one agent per chapter in parallel after the plain-language pass: reviewed as all six personas, filed one review issue per chapter, fixed what the findings called for, left the rest as open items in the issue and review file. Substantive catches include the Tolentino 2024 figure (papers, not programs) in the patient-communication chapter and the merged Memphis turbine sites in the environment chapter; several load-bearing claims re-checked in PubMed | Author asked for the pass after reading the deployed book; author to read the open items in each review issue. PubMed rate limits blocked some re-checks; the review files say which |
| 2026-09-08 | chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), _answers/*.md where rubric wording changed |
Plain-language pass, one agent per chapter in parallel: replaced or defined on first use the design-document vocabulary the author flagged (anchor, register, throughline, artifact, proxy, framing, and about two hundred others across the book), split long sentences, removed em-dashes, hedged verbs to match evidence. No number, citation key, [VERIFY] flag, figure, or section order changed; each agent checked that by script. Block headings were renamed per chapter and are harmonised in the cross-reference pass |
Author said the content was good but the language was jargonish and named the examples; author to spot-read the deployed chapters |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/core-foundations.qmd, _answers/core-foundations.md, reviews/core-foundations-2026-09-07.md, images/curve_fitting.png, additions to styles.css |
Drafted the chapter from modules/core-foundations.md and issue #2; retrieved and read PubMed metadata for all 17 PMIDs cited or linked (eGFR equations, dataset shift, Epic sepsis validation, MYCIN, Watson, eight scoring-system originals) and checked the quoted numbers against the abstracts; confirmed the Liu et al. context-window paper via Crossref; confirmed the 3Blue1Brown and Karpathy videos, the xkcd licence, and playground.tensorflow.org via web fetch; drew the lab panel and chat exchange in CSS as labeled illustrations; wrote the six-persona self-review and applied its fixes |
Author has not yet read the chapter. Citations were checked by tool against PubMed abstracts, not by the author reading each paper. The chat specimen and lab panel are constructed and say so. Part B’s expected model behaviour in the answer key is a prediction, not a recorded run; re-run before the cohort sees it |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd, _answers/core-centaur-cyborg.md, reviews/core-centaur-cyborg-2026-09-07.md |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/core-centaur-cyborg.md and the recovered ai-safety deck notes; retrieved and read six PMIDs in PubMed and two DOIs in Crossref and inserted only those; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode (Chen, 2025-10-15) exists via the podcast site; drew the intern task list and the mis-skilled draft note in HTML, and redrew the Goh 2024 trial numbers as an inline SVG; applied the fixes recorded in the review file |
Working in a parallel worktree with nine sibling chapter agents; author has not yet read the chapter. Numbers in prose were checked against retrieved abstracts by the assistant, not by the author; the Abdulnour claims rest on the module’s summary because PubMed carries no abstract for it. Three [VERIFY] flags remain in the chapter |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/core-bias-equity.qmd, _answers/core-bias-equity.md, reviews/core-bias-equity-2026-09-07.md, images/pulse-oximeter-benin.jpg, images/occult-hypoxemia-by-race.svg, images/obermeyer-cost-vs-illness.svg |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona review from modules/core-bias-equity.md and GitHub issue #4; retrieved and read the metadata of all 20 cited PMIDs with the PubMed tool; fetched the Sjoding letter’s full text (PMC) for the occult-hypoxemia counts and drew both SVG charts by hand from published numbers; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode (date, length) and the FDA draft-guidance status on fda.gov; found and licence-checked one CC BY-SA photo on Wikimedia Commons; dropped one module figure (spirometry 22.7%/3.3%) that could not be sourced and replaced it with Diao et al. 2024 |
Author to read the chapter in full. Obermeyer’s 4.8 vs 3.8 chronic-condition figures come from secondary summaries of the paywalled paper, not the paper’s full text; the abstract supplies 17.7 to 46.5%. Three [VERIFY] flags left in prose, none as citations |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd, _answers/enrichment-agentic-coding.md, reviews/enrichment-agentic-coding-2026-09-07.md, images/voting_software.png, one block appended to styles.css |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-agentic-coding.md and issue #5, working as one of ten parallel chapter agents. Retrieved and read the metadata of every cited PMID in PubMed by tool (18 PMIDs) and resolved four DOIs through Crossref; confirmed the Karpathy video’s date and length from YouTube and Apple Podcasts metadata; confirmed the three Excel headlines against the outlets’ own page titles; downloaded one xkcd strip and read its licence page. Started two live runs of the chapter’s starter prompt (CHA₂DS₂-VASc, MELD-Na) in Claude with no tools; neither returned in time to be read, so the specimen callout is constructed from the known edge failures and labelled “expected behaviour, not a recorded run” in the chapter and answer key. Checked the opening scenario’s MELD-Na arithmetic in Python, which caught a first draft whose two omitted rules cancelled to the same score |
Author to read the chapter in full. Citations were checked against PubMed metadata and abstracts by tool, not by the author reading each paper; the Pearce 2022 and Perry 2023 security figures rest on the model’s reading of those papers and should be spot-checked. Five [VERIFY] flags remain in the chapter (Karpathy posts and Collins WOTY; FDA CDS guidance text of January 2026; canvas enabled in the institutional workspace; Copilot student plan status; CHA₂DS₂-VASc sex-category guideline wording in the answer key) |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, _answers/core-patient-communication.md, reviews/core-patient-communication-2026-09-07.md, images/doctor-talking-with-patient.jpg, images/ayers-2023-redrawn.svg |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/core-patient-communication.md in a parallel agent worktree; retrieved and read the PubMed metadata for all 15 cited PMIDs and pulled the Thomae and Khullar numbers from PMC full text; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode date and length from the podcast feed; searched for a 2024–2026 patient-facing chatbot incident and found the Winters v. OpenAI complaint (allegations, not findings); downloaded one NCI public-domain photo and drew the Ayers figure as SVG from the abstract’s numbers; wrote the illustrative chatbot printout and portal message |
Author to read the chapter in full. The Part B chatbot-as-patient prompt was not run against a live model by the agent; the answer key says to run it before the session. State-law details and the Tradeoffs episode length are flagged VERIFY. The 21% figure is carried from research/competency-frameworks.md and should be confirmed against Tolentino et al.’s table |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd, _answers/enrichment-workforce-economics.md, reviews/enrichment-workforce-economics-2026-09-07.md |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-workforce-economics.md. Verified 17 PMIDs by reading their PubMed records; read the NRMP 2026 Results and Data PDF and three BLS Occupational Outlook pages directly and redrew the numbers as figures, which resolved the module’s NRMP, BLS, and UCSF-RVU [VERIFY] flags (BLS had revised to 2025–35 projections in the meantime; the chapter carries the new ones). Corrected the module’s date for Hinton’s NYT interview (May 2025, not 2026) and replaced its secondary-sourced workforce projection (20.9%) with the Neiman primary (25.7%/40.3%). Confirmed both videos’ upload dates and lengths from YouTube page metadata. Left four [VERIFY] flags where a number came only from secondary reporting (38% single-site validation, imaging-demand projection, CAD reimbursement year, the phrase “bot wars”). No images downloaded; all visuals are CSS blocks, mermaid redrawings, or text clippings |
Author to read the chapter and decide on the illustrative Hinton slide (review file, open item 1). Claims resting on a specific number were checked against the PubMed abstract or the primary PDF, not the full paper. Part A’s expected chatbot behaviour is from one run on 2026-09-07 and should be re-run before each cohort |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/enrichment-environment.qmd, _answers/enrichment-environment.md, reviews/enrichment-environment-2026-09-07.md, images/ai-per-query-figures.svg, images/data-center-cooling-tower.jpg |
Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-environment.md and research/enrichment-activities.md section 3; verified eight PMIDs by retrieving their PubMed metadata and reading the abstracts (Eckelman 2020, Wolf 2022, Lokmic-Tomkins 2022, Doo 2024, Fiske 2025, Schmitz 2026, Selvan 2026, Alzoubi 2026) and three DOIs against Crossref (de Vries 2023, Osmanlliu 2025, Li 2025); fetched the primary web sources for every per-query figure (Li et al. arXiv v1 PDF for the 500 mL sentence, Google arXiv 2508.15734 and Cloud blog, Altman blog, Epoch AI, MIT Technology Review, Jegham et al. arXiv, Berkeley Lab, IEA, ESG Dive for Google’s 2025 and 2026 reports, The Register) and dated each; confirmed the TED talk and its podcast release and length; checked the CC0 licence on the Wikimedia Commons photo; generated the per-query SVG from the figures named on it with a stdlib script |
Author asked for the chapter per issue #8 and the shared brief; author to read the chapter and confirm. The Washington Post article was paywalled to the tool, so its 519 mL and 0.14 kWh come from TechRepublic’s report of it and carry a [VERIFY]; the Memphis turbine count carries a [VERIFY]; the Lancet Digital Health item had no abstract in PubMed and is characterised from its title only. The module’s attribution of the NEJM Catalyst piece to Sherman et al. did not match Crossref (Osmanlliu et al.) and the chapter cites it by DOI without naming authors |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md, reviews/core-ethics-regulation-2026-09-07.md, images/jabbour-2023-explanations.svg, styles.css (appended .ehr-note), _quarto.yml |
Drafted the chapter from modules/core-ethics-regulation.md and research/enrichment-activities.md §5; retrieved and read PubMed metadata for all 19 @pmid: keys used (Price 2019, Mello 2024, Tobia 2020, Tacconelli 2026, Jabbour 2023, Wu 2021, Chouffani El Fassi 2024, Taylor 2026, Anderson 2025, Lawrence 2025, Budzyń 2025, Wolfe 2026, Al-Anezi 2026, NAM AICC draft and commentary, and others); re-checked the regulatory state by web: downloaded the FDA CDS guidance PDF and found it is dated 29 January 2026 (superseding 6 January 2026), confirmed the EU Digital Omnibus deferral, HTI-5 still proposed, the August 2026 FDA generative-AI discussion paper; verified the three press headlines and the Stanford Legal episode (48 min, transcript); redrew the Jabbour figure as SVG from the paper’s numbers; drew the illustrative note in CSS; wrote the six-persona review and applied its fixes |
Author has not yet read this chapter; it was written by a parallel agent under the shared chapter brief. Claims that rest on a specific number were checked against the PubMed abstract, not the full paper. The insurer statement, the Elsa hallucination reports, the FDA device count, and the EU Official Journal date are flagged [VERIFY] in the chapter or answer key. The Sharp and Sutter lawsuits are described as allegations only |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/enrichment-prompting-lab.qmd, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md, reviews/enrichment-prompting-lab-2026-09-07.md, images/goh-2024-redrawn.png, .chat-pair block in styles.css |
Drafted the chapter, four fictional vignettes, the answer key, and the six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-prompting-lab.md and the 2024 prompt-engineering deck; looked up every cited paper with the PubMed tool and read the abstract before inserting the key (13 keys in the chapter, 6 more in the answer key); confirmed the podcast episode’s date and length from the NEJM AI Grand Rounds RSS feed; redrew the Goh 2024 trial estimates in R from the abstract’s numbers; wrote the two illustrative chatbot answers by hand, labelled as composed, not transcripts |
Author to read the chapter and the vignettes. Citations were checked against PubMed abstracts by tool, not by the author reading each paper; two drug-label claims in the answer key and one NEJM AI trial not yet in PubMed carry [VERIFY] flags. The chatbot answers in the opening are not real transcripts and say so |
| 2026-09-07 | chapters/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.qmd, _answers/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.md, reviews/enrichment-rag-notebooklm-2026-09-07.md, images/retrieval-hallucination-vollmer-2026.svg, additions to styles.css |
Drafted the chapter from modules/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.md and the archive article; searched PubMed and read the abstracts of 12 papers cited by PMID and one by DOI (Crossref); produced the score-1 specimen by a real run of a source-grounded summarizer (the unnamed model behind Claude Code’s WebFetch tool) on the PMC full text of Vollmer et al. 2026 and checked its numbers against the paper’s Table 6; confirmed the IBM video’s date and length from the YouTube page; confirmed NotebookLM education-account access from Google’s help and admin pages; drew the bar chart by hand as SVG from the paper’s reported figures; reviewed as all six personas and applied the fixes |
Author to read the chapter. NotebookLM itself was not run (no Google sign-in available to the assistant); the answer key says to run the pre-vetted set before the cohort. Tier limits are from third-party guides and flagged VERIFY. Claims resting on a specific number were checked against abstracts, not full texts, except the specimen |
| 2026-09-07 | images/, styles.css, visual additions to chapters/core-appraisal.qmd |
Found and licence-checked one CC BY-SA photo (Wikimedia Commons) and two xkcd strips (CC BY-NC 2.5); verified three real headlines about the five-system scribe study via web search and built them as text clippings rather than screenshots; drew an illustrative vendor slide in CSS | Author asked for visual appeal, humour, and lay-press material; author to confirm the NC licence on xkcd is acceptable for a free public course page |
| 2026-09-07 | reviews/core-appraisal-2026-09-07.md, GitHub issue #1, revisions to chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, _answers/core-appraisal.md, styles.css |
Reviewed the chapter as all six personas; verified FUTURE-AI, TRIPOD-LLM, NAM AICC, Goodman 2023, Chen 2023 in PubMed; ran the Part A prompt itself and checked its five references in PubMed for the specimen panel; drafted the three new sections and all nine action items | Author asked for the review and named the three gaps (concrete examples, information correctness, what makes a good tool); author to read the new sections. The score-1 and score-0 specimens are constructed, and say so in the chapter |
| 2026-09-07 | curriculum/personas.md, AI-LEDGER.md, appendix/ (about, personas, ledger), opening-scenario rule in chapter-pattern.md, new opening of chapters/core-appraisal.qmd |
Drafted all of it from the author’s brief; proposed the ethicist persona and the four persona revisions; modeled the appendix on the author’s RBiocBook about page | Author specified the personas and the scenario requirement, reviewed the draft, asked for and approved the revisions |
| 2026-09-06 | chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, _answers/core-appraisal.md |
Drafted chapter prose, figures, the Do activities, and the answer key from modules/core-appraisal.md; looked up every reference with the PubMed tool and inserted resolved keys |
Author read the chapter in full. References were checked against PubMed by tool, not by the author reading each paper; claims in prose that rest on a specific number should still be spot-checked against the source |
| 2026-09-06 | curriculum/chapter-pattern.md, curriculum/delivery-modes.md, exercises/, research/comparable-courses.md |
Drafted from the author’s design decisions; reviewed the HMS ExecEd program from its public page | Author directed and edited |
| 2026-09-01 | CONTEXT.md |
Drafted from author-supplied facts about people, roster, and registration | Author supplied every fact; none were generated |
| 2026-08-05 | curriculum/, modules/, research/ (initial framework, modules, and research notes) |
Drafted competency framework, module catalog, and research notes with web search; flagged unverified claims [VERIFY] inline |
Author reviewed structure. [VERIFY] flags remain in research/ until the author checks each claim; they travel into chapters unchanged |
| 2026-08-05 | research/talks-inventory.md, recovered Drive deck contents |
Read and summarized the author’s prior lecture decks | Author’s own material; summaries checked against the decks |
What is not AI. The competency IDs, the four-week structure, the design constraints, the guest roster, the choice of personas, and the requirement that every chapter open with a clinical scenario are the author’s decisions. The model drafted the prose that records them.