teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 35 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 918

extract: 2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation #1343

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation into main
pull from: extract/2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 4 +34 -1
leo commented 2026-03-18 19:00:27 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-18 19:00:28 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <968B2991-E2DF-4006-B962-F5B0A0CC8ACA>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-18 19:00:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-18 19:00 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:83e4effe8fe4cbc1ce7751084e4fb75f4c0b7164 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-18 19:00 UTC*
vida commented 2026-03-18 19:01:03 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct, with the added evidence supporting or challenging the existing claims appropriately.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and applied to different claims.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the diff, but the new evidence provides additional support or challenge, which would generally help calibrate confidence appropriately.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation]] is present in all three modified claims, and it is also present as a new file in inbox/queue/, indicating it is a new source being added, so it is not a broken link.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct, with the added evidence supporting or challenging the existing claims appropriately. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and applied to different claims. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are not explicitly stated in the diff, but the new evidence provides additional support or challenge, which would generally help calibrate confidence appropriately. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation]]` is present in all three modified claims, and it is also present as a new file in `inbox/queue/`, indicating it is a new source being added, so it is not a broken link. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-18 19:01:17 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: All three modified claim files retain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments add only body content, not frontmatter changes, so schema compliance is preserved.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The first enrichment (AI scribes claim) introduces OpenEvidence adoption data as a contrast to documentation AI, the second enrichment adds new quantitative metrics (20M consultations, $12B valuation, 1M single-day peak) not present in the original claim, and the third enrichment makes a novel methodological argument about absence of outcomes data being significant evidence — all three are substantively new contributions to their respective claims.

3. Confidence: The AI scribes claim remains "high" (justified by the 92% adoption figure and rural expansion evidence), the OpenEvidence adoption claim remains "high" (now further supported by the 20M consultation/month scale and $12B valuation), and the benchmark performance claim remains "medium" (appropriately cautious given the enrichment actually reinforces the gap between benchmark scores and clinical outcomes evidence).

4. Wiki links: The enrichments reference [[2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation]] which appears in the inbox/queue/ directory of this PR, so the link target exists and is not broken.

5. Source quality: All three enrichments cite the same source (the OpenEvidence growth/valuation article from inbox), which provides concrete metrics (20M consultations, $12B valuation, 100% USMLE score) that are appropriate evidence for claims about adoption velocity, clinical AI performance, and the benchmark-to-impact gap.

6. Specificity: The first enrichment makes the falsifiable claim that clinical reasoning AI faces adoption friction that documentation AI does not (supported by the 44% accuracy concern rate), the second provides specific quantitative metrics (20M/month, $12B, 1M single-day) that could be verified or contradicted, and the third makes the falsifiable methodological argument that absence of published outcomes data at this deployment scale is itself significant evidence of the benchmark-impact gap.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** All three modified claim files retain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments add only body content, not frontmatter changes, so schema compliance is preserved. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The first enrichment (AI scribes claim) introduces OpenEvidence adoption data as a *contrast* to documentation AI, the second enrichment adds new quantitative metrics (20M consultations, $12B valuation, 1M single-day peak) not present in the original claim, and the third enrichment makes a novel methodological argument about absence of outcomes data being significant evidence — all three are substantively new contributions to their respective claims. **3. Confidence:** The AI scribes claim remains "high" (justified by the 92% adoption figure and rural expansion evidence), the OpenEvidence adoption claim remains "high" (now further supported by the 20M consultation/month scale and $12B valuation), and the benchmark performance claim remains "medium" (appropriately cautious given the enrichment actually reinforces the gap between benchmark scores and clinical outcomes evidence). **4. Wiki links:** The enrichments reference `[[2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation]]` which appears in the inbox/queue/ directory of this PR, so the link target exists and is not broken. **5. Source quality:** All three enrichments cite the same source (the OpenEvidence growth/valuation article from inbox), which provides concrete metrics (20M consultations, $12B valuation, 100% USMLE score) that are appropriate evidence for claims about adoption velocity, clinical AI performance, and the benchmark-to-impact gap. **6. Specificity:** The first enrichment makes the falsifiable claim that clinical reasoning AI faces adoption friction that documentation AI does not (supported by the 44% accuracy concern rate), the second provides specific quantitative metrics (20M/month, $12B, 1M single-day) that could be verified or contradicted, and the third makes the falsifiable methodological argument that absence of published outcomes data at this deployment scale is itself significant evidence of the benchmark-impact gap. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-18 19:01:17 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-18 19:01:17 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-18 19:03:17 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-03-18 19:03:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times due to enrichment conflicts with concurrent PRs. Source will be re-extracted against current main for a fresh PR. No claims are lost.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times due to enrichment conflicts with concurrent PRs. Source will be re-extracted against current main for a fresh PR. No claims are lost.

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#1343
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-01-01-openevidence-clinical-ai-growth-12b-valuation"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?