OpenKP CAIHL draft report

OpenKP: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

This assessment covers OpenKP with a patient-chosen AI client. OpenKP itself is a local record connector, with preview and confirmation workflows. The chosen AI client receives returned records under its own policies. OpenKP and HugoScore share a maintainer, so this is a self-evaluation.

Scope and agency posture

OpenKP plus a patient-chosen MCP AI client, for Kaiser Permanente Northern California records. OpenKP itself is a local connector, not a language model. HugoScore and OpenKP share a maintainer, so this remains a disclosed self-evaluation.

Posture: Strongly agency-expanding.

Axis: 91/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

Sources and documented findings

• The website describes patient questions over portal records, explicit write confirmation, and a separate AI client that receives tool results.

• The current repository README documents preview/commit calls and a noncommercial license permitting personal and advocacy use. An older retrieved package README still says MIT and overstates local-only data handling.

• The retrieved server source exposes record-retrieval tools. Its cached version was older than the website, so it does not establish current runtime parity.

Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: The patient chooses the substantive questions and AI client, and operates the portal connector. A callable confirmation parameter is a control mechanism, but not proof that every client obtains informed human approval before invoking it.

Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Cross-note comparisons, access-log questions, and retrieving original records enable scrutiny of institutional accounts. The language model provides interpretation, so accuracy and critical capacity must be evaluated for the combined workflow.

Informed control

Editorial assessment: The website identifies the client data boundary more clearly than the repository's broad local-only statement. A source-available noncommercial license supports personal adaptation without guaranteeing universal use rights or secure operation.

Assessment and limits

The strong design-based finding is supported, but the score should explicitly describe the assembled AI workflow. Apply the same distinction to deterministic exporters later. No demonstrated outcome or independence claim is warranted.

Confidence: Medium for architecture, lower for current implementation and usable approval.

Remaining uncertainty: Client approval behavior, current source/version parity, external model data handling, portal terms, and accessibility outside technically capable NorCal users.

Published documentation is evidence of stated conditions, not proof of actual implementation. Unknowns did not receive automatic negative points. Funding, sponsorship, and public code do not determine agency by themselves.

Review provenance

• Reviewer/model: OpenAI Codex / GPT-6.
• Method: Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
• Human review: Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
• Earlier review: 2026-06-08. Historical assessment. Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.

Disclosures

Self-evaluated: OpenKP and HugoScore share the same maintainer. Hugo Campos maintains both OpenKP and HugoScore, so this profile is a self-evaluation rather than an independent review. It is published with that label, and independent third-party review of OpenKP is invited and outstanding.