diff --git a/inbox/archive/health/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026.md b/inbox/archive/health/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..efb56cc3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/inbox/archive/health/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+type: source
+title: "State of Clinical AI Report 2026 (ARISE Network, Stanford-Harvard)"
+author: "ARISE Network — Peter Brodeur MD, Ethan Goh MD, Adam Rodman MD, Jonathan Chen MD PhD"
+url: https://arise-ai.org/report
+date: 2026-01-01
+domain: health
+secondary_domains: [ai-alignment]
+format: report
+status: processed
+priority: high
+tags: [clinical-ai, state-of-ai, stanford, harvard, arise, openevidence, safety-paradox, outcomes-evidence, real-world-performance]
+---
+
+## Content
+
+The State of Clinical AI (2026) was released in January 2026 by the ARISE network, a Stanford-Harvard research collaboration. The inaugural report synthesizes evidence on clinical AI performance in real-world settings vs. controlled benchmarks.
+
+**Key findings:**
+
+**Benchmark vs. real-world gap:**
+- LLMs demonstrate strong performance on diagnostic benchmarks and structured clinical cases
+- Real-world performance "breaks down when systems must manage uncertainty, incomplete information, or multi-step workflows" — which describes everyday clinical care
+- "Real-world care remains uneven" as an evidence base
+
+**The "Safety Paradox" (novel framing):**
+- Clinicians turn to "nimble, consumer-facing medical search engines" (specifically citing OpenEvidence) to check drug interactions and summarize patient histories, "often bypassing slow internal IT systems"
+- This represents a **safety paradox**: clinicians prioritize speed over compliance because institutional AI tools are too slow for clinical workflows
+- OE adoption is explicitly characterized as **shadow-IT workaround behavior** that has become normalized
+
+**Evaluation framework:**
+- The report argues current evaluation focuses on "engagement rather than outcomes"
+- Calls for "clearer evidence, stronger escalation pathways, and evaluation frameworks that focus on outcomes rather than engagement alone"
+
+**OpenEvidence specifically named** as a case study of consumer-facing medical AI being used to bypass institutional oversight.
+
+Additional coverage: Stanford Department of Medicine news release, BABL AI, Harvard Science Review ("Beyond the Hype: The First Real Audit of Clinical AI," February 2026), Stanford HAI.
+
+## Agent Notes
+**Why this matters:** The ARISE report is the first systematic, peer-network-authored overview of clinical AI's real-world state. Its framing of OE as "shadow IT" is significant — it recharacterizes OE's rapid adoption not as a sign of clinical value, but as clinicians working around institutional barriers. This frames the OE-Sutter Epic integration as moving from "shadow IT" to "officially sanctioned shadow IT" — the speed that made OE attractive is now institutionally embedded without resolving the governance gap.
+
+**What surprised me:** The explicit naming of OpenEvidence as a case study in the safety paradox. This is the first time a Stanford-affiliated academic review has characterized OE adoption as a workaround behavior rather than evidence of clinical value. At $12B valuation and 30M+ consultations/month, this framing matters for how OE's safety profile is evaluated.
+
+**What I expected but didn't find:** Specific outcome data for any clinical AI tool. The report explicitly identifies this as the field's core gap — the absence of outcomes data is the finding, not an absence of coverage.
+
+**KB connections:**
+- Directly extends Session 9 finding on the valuation-evidence asymmetry (OE at $12B, one retrospective 5-case study)
+- The "safety paradox" framing provides vocabulary for why OE's governance gap is structural, not accidental
+- Connects to the Sutter Health EHR integration (February 2026) — embedding OE in Epic formally addresses the speed problem while potentially entrenching the governance gap
+
+**Extraction hints:** Extract the "safety paradox" framing as a named mechanism: clinicians bypassing institutional AI governance to use consumer-facing tools because institutional tools are too slow. This is generalizable beyond OE. Secondary: extract the benchmark-vs-real-world gap finding as it applies to clinical AI at scale.
+
+**Context:** The ARISE network is the most credible academic voice on clinical AI evaluation practices. The report's release in January 2026 — coinciding with the NOHARM study findings — represents a coordinated moment of academic accountability for a rapidly scaling industry. The Harvard Science Review calling it "the first real audit" signals its significance in the field.
+
+## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: "medical LLM benchmarks don't translate to clinical impact" (existing KB claim)
+WHY ARCHIVED: Provides the first systematic framework for understanding clinical AI real-world performance gaps, introduces the "safety paradox" framing for consumer AI workaround behavior
+EXTRACTION HINT: The "safety paradox" is a novel mechanism claim — extract it separately from the benchmark-gap finding. Both have evidence (OE adoption behavior, real-world performance breakdown) and are specific enough to be arguable.