Unit rounding
DEMO-35 — Batch Claim Against Individually-Tracked Obligations
Authored demonstration. Not a live employer result.
01 · Situation
A governing standard creates a separately identifiable review obligation for each patient on a unit. A single bulk entry claims “all patients reviewed” without naming individuals or their individual results.
Illustrative unit-rounding standard, creating one review obligation per patient, each with its own subject, durable identity, and closure condition (a documented individual assessment), and requiring that any attestation identify each patient and each result individually — a general "all reviewed" statement is explicitly stated as insufficient under this standard.
02 · Evidence
What the record holds.
- E1Rounding standard, creating individual per-patient obligations and requiring individually identified attestation
Verified · on file
- E2Single log entry: “All patients on unit reviewed, Day 0,” with no patient-level identification or individual results
Verified · Day 0
- E3Individual patient charts (5 patients on unit) reviewed; none contain a patient-specific assessment entry for Day 0
Verified · Day 1
03 · Obligations / Owners
The chain of responsibility.
- 01
Rounding clinician — five separate obligations, one per patient, per E1, not one unit-level obligation.
04 · Event Type
The classification of the event.
ExecutionClaimed and EvidenceAttached (E2, the bulk entry); VerificationCompleted for each of the five individual obligations against E1's standard, using E2 and E3.
05 · Verification Result
What verification established.
E1 expressly requires individual identification, and E2 supplies none. Verification for each of the five individual obligations: INSUFFICIENT.
06 · Projection
What the evidence implies ahead.
The five individually-owed obligations remain not demonstrably fulfilled. The bulk entry's existence is preserved as evidence, but it does not satisfy any of the five obligations under this standard's own terms.
07 · Next Action
The corrective obligation.
Determine whether each individual review occurred through an accepted evidentiary path. For any supported review, record the patient-specific result with the actual execution and entry timestamps preserved; complete any still-outstanding review as appropriate.
08 · Economic Boundary
Where the evidence stops.
Not established.
09 · Engine Answer
What the Engine can and cannot establish.
E1 creates five separate, individually owed review obligations and explicitly requires individually identified attestation — it states that a general “all reviewed” claim does not meet this standard. E2 is exactly that kind of general claim, naming no patients and no individual results. The Engine can demonstrate that the bulk entry exists and that it does not contain the subject-level information the governing standard itself requires. Each of the five individual obligations remains not demonstrably fulfilled, not because bulk attestation is inherently insufficient in general, but because this specific standard requires more than this specific entry supplies.
One entry. Five obligations. The standard required five identifications, and got one.
10 · What Remains Unknown
Outside the Engine's reach.
Whether individual reviews actually occurred and were simply not documented at the patient level.