# RTHM: CAIHL reassessment

September 8, 2026. Published AI-assisted draft.

RTHM documents controls to dismiss suspected diagnoses and delete conversations. These provide practical ways to redirect the service, with deletion exceptions and model-use conditions still relevant. Clinical interpretation and underlying record correction remain separate questions.

## Scope and agency posture

Patient complex-illness intelligence platform, with optional record exchange and separate paid clinical services.

Posture: **Potentially agency-expanding, with vendor-funnel and data-use caveats**.

Axis: 70/100, retained provisionally. No numerical recalibration was performed.

## Sources and documented findings

- The current FAQ documents confirming or dismissing suspected diagnoses, deleting individual conversations, care-team sharing and a manual-upload alternative to reciprocal HIE sharing. It also notes legally retained clinical assessments after account deletion. https://www.rthm.com/support

- Terms permit deidentification, downstream use or sale of deidentified information, and broad user-information use for model improvement. These permissions must be read beside FAQ assurances, not treated as proof of actual sale. https://www.rthm.com/legal/terms-of-use

## Patient authority

Inference from the documented workflow: The ability to dismiss a suspected diagnosis is substantive control over the platform's representation of the patient. Optional HIE participation and care-team sharing provide further choices.

## Critical capacity

Editorial assessment: Organizing history and preparing questions can strengthen patient action. Profile correction is now documented, although source-linked review of every roadmap recommendation remains unverified.

## Informed control

Editorial assessment: The FAQ explains reciprocal HIE exchange and its alternative. Training and derivative-use permissions remain material conditions despite simplified no-sale wording.

## Assessment and limits

Update the baseline's broad correction unknown to recognize real documented controls. The paid care pathway is a potential incentive, not proof that recommendations force vendor care.

Confidence: Moderate for published controls and terms.

Remaining uncertainty: Practical roadmap editing, source provenance, consent clarity and paid-care recommendation influence remain unverified

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: 2026-06-20. [Historical assessment](https://github.com/hugooc/HugoScore/blob/7e0ba68fae543832fe5f19009448e473983f48a9/site/reports/rthm-caihl-report.md). Earlier claims are not automatically reverified by this publication.