Automated clinical alerting
DEMO-36 — Fully Automated Lifecycle, Accountable Organization, No Manual Act
Authored demonstration. Not a live employer result.
01 · Situation
An accountable organization's obligation is executed automatically under a governing rule, with system-generated evidence and no human-attributable act in either direction.
Illustrative automated-alert-routing rule (E1), under which the accountable organization (the monitoring service, as an organizational entity) is obligated to route qualifying alerts to the assigned care team within 5 minutes, executed by a rules engine with no required manual step.
02 · Evidence
What the record holds.
- E1Automated-routing rule, naming the monitoring service as the accountable organization and specifying the 5-minute routing requirement
Verified · on file
- E1aEpisode-specific record showing this obligation was created upon the qualifying alert and assigned to the monitoring service, under the authority of the governing rule in E1
Verified · Day 0
- E2System log: alert generated, routed to the assigned care team’s system at a timestamp 3 minutes after generation, entirely system-executed
Verified · Day 0
03 · Obligations / Owners
The chain of responsibility.
- 01
The monitoring service (the accountable organization named in E1) — the rules engine is the mechanism by which the organization’s obligation is executed, not itself an accountable party.
04 · Event Type
The classification of the event.
ObligationCreated — the qualifying alert creates the routing obligation under E1. ObligationAssigned — the obligation is assigned to the monitoring service under E1 (via E1a). ExecutionClaimed — E2 records automated routing. EvidenceAttached — E2 is attached. VerificationCompleted — the recorded interval is evaluated against the five-minute requirement.
05 · Verification Result
What verification established.
SUPPORTED — the system-generated evidence shows routing within the required window, and the obligation is traceable to a named accountable organization, not to the automated system itself.
06 · Projection
What the evidence implies ahead.
Fulfilled, entirely through automated execution under a governing rule, with the accountable organization's responsibility unaffected by the absence of a manual act.
07 · Next Action
The corrective obligation.
None — properly fulfilled.
08 · Economic Boundary
Where the evidence stops.
Not applicable.
09 · Engine Answer
What the Engine can and cannot establish.
E1 authorizes and defines this obligation category; E1a is the episode-specific record establishing that this obligation was created and assigned to the monitoring service for this alert. The system log shows routing completed within 3 minutes, inside the 5-minute requirement. The Engine can demonstrate fulfillment through machine-generated evidence, tested against the rule's own closure condition. The rules engine remains the execution mechanism throughout — never the accountable owner.
No one acted. The organization was still accountable, and the record still closes.
10 · What Remains Unknown
Outside the Engine's reach.
Nothing material to this obligation's fulfillment; this record does not address the organization's broader oversight of the automated system.