Appendix F — AI ledger

Where AI was used to build this course, what it did, and who checked it. The course teaches students to disclose and verify AI use; this file is the course doing the same. It answers the ethicist’s last question in curriculum/personas.md, and is rendered as an appendix of the book.

Rule. Any commit where an AI tool drafted, rewrote, or verified content that students or adopters will read adds a row. Tooling that only formats or builds (Quarto, wrangler, CI) does not. “Human review” says what a person actually did, not that review happened.

Standing uses. Not logged per commit because they run every time:

What	Tool	Human review
Drafting and editing of design files, modules, and chapters in this repo	Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1 and predecessors), pair-programming style: the author directs, the model drafts, the author edits and commits	Every file is read and edited by the author before commit. Citations are verified separately, below.
Resolving @pmid: / @doi: citation keys into references.resolved.bib at render time	quartobot (_quarto.yml pre-render)	Resolution is a lookup against PubMed and Crossref, not generation. A key that does not resolve fails the render.
Drafting or revising many chapters at once: one agent per chapter, each in its own git worktree and branch, from one written brief; a coordinating agent merges the branches, runs one render, and writes the ledger row	Claude Code subagents (Claude Fable 5.1), used for the ten-chapter draft (2026-09-07), the plain-language, review, and mannered-prose passes (2026-09-08)	The author writes or approves the brief and reads the merged result in the deployed book. Each agent reports what it changed and what it could not check; the coordinator spot-checks the reports and the per-pass row says what was checked by script (numbers, citation keys, flags, figure ids, headings) rather than by a person
Chat tutor over the rendered chapters (planned; see curriculum/chapter-pattern.md)	Not yet built	Answer keys in _answers/ are held for the tutor and never rendered. Disclosure to students goes in the preface when it ships.

Per-commit log. Newest first. Rows dated 2026-09-07 for the ten parallel-drafted chapters say the author had not yet read them; the author read the deployed book on 2026-09-08, before the plain-language pass, and the rows are left as written because they record what was true at that commit.

Date	Artifact	What AI did	Human review
2026-10-12	research/book-review-2026-10-12.md (new), slides/core-foundations.qmd, appendix/open-labs.qmd, appendix/resources.qmd, images/retrieval-hallucination-vollmer-2026.svg, chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd (subtitle), appendix/instructors.qmd	Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5), the coordinating agent of the 12 October review: ran a whole-book review with seven read-only subagents and wrote it up; checked the Goodell, Windecker-versus-Wu and Waldock findings against PubMed and the NotebookLM rename on the web; wrote the brief for six batch agents; reviewed PRs #104 to #109, merged main into each (keeping every ledger row), rendered each once with real citation resolution, and merged them. This cleanup: the deck’s 27-minute video link (the old ID now plays a re-upload on another channel; checked with YouTube oEmbed), Gemini Notebook named on two pages, the Vollmer figure footnote (five base models), the plan chapter’s subtitle in minutes, and the instructors tables’ minutes	Not yet read by the author. The author approved the plan and made the decisions recorded in CONTEXT.md. Every render ran quartobot resolve for real; no warnings, no unresolved cross-references
2026-10-12	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd, chapters/enrichment-environment.qmd, and their three answer keys in _answers/	Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5, batch E of the 12 October book review) revised the week 4 chapters to the shared brief: an In short box, AIM codes in the objectives, What you need, no Summary, honest time (about 60 minutes each), and a pointer to the week 4 “what you will keep” piece. Ethics: drops “any free chatbot also works”; says what scribes do well first, from the trials it already cited; adds that 94.7% of reviewed notes had no significant error; moves attestation advice into the main text; moves “Who the tool fails” and Jabbour to Go deeper; cuts the trials to two sentences; defines “proxies fail”; adds Check rows for objectives 4 and 6; sources the automation-bias sentence; adds a VERIFY-marked sentence on California AB 3030; re-dates the regulatory facts; cuts the insurer claims the cited page does not make. Workforce: Part A success first in ChatGPT Edu; about 750 words of numbers moved to Go deeper; authoring notes removed; UCSF reworded as an association and its unsupported 5.8% dropped; “one trained observer”. Environment: Part A success first; Part B optional; stand-alone fixes; 49 students; Bloomberg (May 2025) replaces Ceres for “two-thirds”, Newton County cut; xAI reduced to dated, neutral facts; Eckelman, Vicuna, and the 80% paper’s company authors corrected.	Not yet read by the author. Checked by the model against PubMed abstracts: pmid:40305017, 41996389, 23763878, 21685142, 38112814, 29374357, 39054373, 41625485, 41497288, 41729180, 38834180, 42334196, 41920565, 39952776, 41031940, 33284703, 39189909; full text in PMC: pmid:41511775 (no 5.8%), 35551275 (Digital Diagnostics affiliations); pmid:39187696 has no abstract, its 521 devices and 43% seen in coverage only. Web, 12 October 2026: FDA AI device list (1,614 rows counted from the page dated 4 September 2026); HTI-5 still proposed; EU Digital Omnibus dates; FDA CDS guidance 29 January 2026 and the generative-AI discussion paper (via search summaries); no AI malpractice verdict found; Medical Economics page read; NAACP v. X.AI docket on CourtListener (no ruling); SELC timeline. Not opened (paywalled or blocked): Bloomberg, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the AB 3030 statute text, Colorado SB 26-189. ChatGPT Edu prompts not run.
2026-10-12	chapters/core-bias-equity.qmd, chapters/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.qmd, _answers/core-bias-equity.md, _answers/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.md	Claude Code (Claude Opus) subagent, from the 12 October review and batch brief, revised the two week 2 menu chapters. Both: In short box, AIM codes into the objectives, honest time (bias about 75 minutes, grounding about 70), one-line patient rule, Summary deleted, cross-chapter pointers to cut sections removed. Bias: FDA device figure re-attributed to Windecker 2025 (pmid:40305017) from Wu 2021; preprint wording “1 of 34 passed the anticipated FDA criteria”; “guidance” not “rule”; “Most” not “Every”; Fawzy delay restated; care-management status corrected (the paper reports a fix under way with the manufacturer, not a changed product); Part B rewritten as a Learn-it-with-AI step (ChatGPT Edu names three cases, the student confirms one paper in PubMed and writes a row); pre-vetted list, FDA-cleared callout, technical-fixes section and about 30 numbers cut. Grounding: NotebookLM renamed Gemini Notebook (16 July 2026) and current limits stated with dates; specimen labelled as Claude output, not Gemini Notebook; Vollmer wording softened to match the abstract’s “directionally” and the model count corrected to five; author note removed; context window and “does not learn from you” defined in place; Step 2 rewritten as a checked one-page journal-club brief the student keeps; chunked-table section collapsed; lost in the middle, chunk sizes and most numbers cut. Answer keys rewritten to match.	Not yet read by the author. Checked by the agent: every citation key in both chapters against its PubMed abstract (29 keys; Vollmer also against the PMC full text and page HTML, where Table 6 and the five-model paired test were confirmed); Obermeyer 4.8 vs 3.8 (26.3%) and the manufacturer’s response in the authors’ accepted manuscript on eScholarship; the 65.8% eGFR adoption figure on the Clinical Chemistry letter page; the FDA 2013 guidance PDF and the draft guidance page (still draft on 12 October); the Google blog posts on the rename and the limits, the Gemini Notebook plans page, and the new web address (by redirect). Not checked: the Do has not been run in Gemini Notebook or ChatGPT Edu with a CU login; the figure images/retrieval-hallucination-vollmer-2026.svg still says “Six models” (outside this change); the chapters were not rendered.
2026-10-12	chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd, _answers/core-patient-communication.md, _answers/enrichment-agentic-coding.md	Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5), one agent of the 12 October book pass, working from the coordinator’s brief and the 12 October review (section D). Patient chapter: added the In short box and honest time (about 60 minutes); cut about 600 words (competency-framework paragraph, empathy section to the figure plus four sentences, printout evidence to two sentences, lawsuit prose, Summary); renamed “the spine” to “the three sentences”; replaced the Friday 30 October role-play with journal question 4 and practice with a classmate or at Christina Olson’s 26 October workshop; added an optional Part A item on the AI-safety headline (issue #92); removed “any free chatbot also works”. Agentic coding: rewrote the Goodell 2025 paragraph (the 13-fold drop came from purpose-built calculators, not model-written code; code execution moved wrong answers only from about 64 to 54 percent); made the MELD-Na scenario agree with MELD 3.0 (MELD-Na now a referral threshold) and credited the OPTN sodium bounds and MELD > 11 rule to Kim 2021 (new key pmid:34481845) instead of Kim 2008; fixed “all three groups” (pmid:42394077), “validates” (pmid:40462782), and “found only later” (pmid:42611917); restated the four VIBE-HI questions from the paper; cut about 1,300 words (Two names, which closes the Karpathy flag; the spreadsheet and gene-name examples; the hazard and device sections; Patient information, once more; Summary); removed live-session lines and the non-university tools; added the build-first link, “Open it in canvas” in the prompt, honest times (about 85 minutes, Do about an hour), and made Part C optional. Answer keys: MELD 22.7 and 31.5 (were 24.4 and 32.0), a Goodell note, a model answer for the new patient item, no cards or votes.	Not yet read by the author. Checked by the model: Goodell against the PMC full text (PMC11914283); Kim 2008, Kamath 2001, MELD 3.0 (PMC8608337, for the OPTN rules), VIBE-HI (PMC13442437), and the abstracts of pmid:42394077, 40462782, 42611917, 37115527, 41359230, 39177012, 37782499, 42232526; MELD and MELD-Na recomputed in Python; Winters v. OpenAI status by web search (no ruling found, 2026-10-12); GitHub Copilot signups (paused 20 April 2026, reopened 17 June 2026, GitHub changelog). Not checked: the canvas preview in CU ChatGPT Edu (flag kept as a footnote); the new Part A item and starter prompt have not been run in Edu; the book was not rendered.
2026-10-12	chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd, chapters/core-foundations.qmd, _answers/plan-your-learning.md, _answers/core-foundations.md	Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5), one agent of the 12 October review batch, revised the two week 1 chapters to the review (section A) and the batch brief. Plan: the four course rules word for word (the old rule 1 allowed patient data in an approved tool); Learn it with AI in the plan prompt, the course list and the Check; the Do fitted to the 60-minute Thursday session (setup and steps 1, 3, 4 in the session; journal template and sharing after), laptop and no-Projects fallback, Copilot in place of “any free chatbot”, Discord made conditional, the extra journal questions made the answers to journal questions 1 and 3, journal question 2 and weekly hours matched to main; the OpenAI practice to Go deeper; In short box and “About one hour”. Foundations: In short box and “About 60 minutes”; the 8-minute 3Blue1Brown video in Watch and the 27-minute one in Go deeper with a corrected link; the nested-circles figure from the deck with about 90 words and a new objective and Check row; the eGFR history, COVID X-rays and MYCIN/Watson in one collapsed optional callout, trimmed; Part B rewritten as “Ask, then check” (success first); fact fixes; “the bridge” and other metaphors replaced; long sentences split; Summary deleted. Prose outside Do, Check and Go deeper went from 5,309 to 3,945 words in the main text, plus 793 in the optional box. Answer keys updated; “tutor” removed.	Not yet read by the author. Verified by the agent against PubMed: Inker 2021 (pmid:34554658) abstract and PMC full text (the race-term direction, 3.7 and 7.1; all participants 18 or older; ambulatory adults without serious coexisting conditions); Pastucha 2026 (pmid:41546380, best version 51 percent on reference accuracy); Wong 2021 (pmid:34152373); Levey 2009 (pmid:19414839); Levey 1999 (pmid:10075613); Yu 1979 MYCIN (pmid:480542; “never used in routine care” is not in it, so it is now a VERIFY flag); Wu 2025 (pmid:40240349); the DeGrave preprint full text in PMC (the quoted “half of the model’s predictive performance is lost” falls in a gap in the PMC text and was not re-confirmed). YouTube pages and oEmbed read with curl: LPZh9BOjkQs (3Blue1Brown, 7 min 58 s, 20 November 2024) and wjZofJX0v4M (27 min 14 s, 1 April 2024); the old link yMQPQuz5WpA now plays a re-upload on an unrelated channel. No prompt was run in ChatGPT Edu, and nothing was rendered.
2026-10-12	chapters/enrichment-prompting-lab.qmd, chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md, _answers/core-appraisal.md, one paragraph each in modules/core-appraisal.md and research/enrichment-activities.md (FDA devices)	Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5), one of several batch agents working from the 12 October book review: gave both chapters the In short box, honest subtitle (prompting lab about 60 minutes, appraisal about 70), What you need line, and the one-line patient-information rule; deleted the Summaries. Prompting lab: every run in a Temporary Chat or a chat outside the course project; template kept in the ChatGPT project and the one-sentence finding in journal question 2; Step 5 optional; the two trials, their figure, objective and Check row moved to Go deeper; Mermaid figure and deck note dropped; “any free chatbot also works” removed. Appraisal: Part A rewritten success first (ChatGPT Edu with web search, three references, then a patient-worded contrast, with a “Did it show sources?” column); OpenEvidence row, HTI-1 callout, FDA list count, “keep in your pocket”, the tutor sentence, and the decorative photo removed; Kohane episode to Go deeper; one term, “search-first”. Citation fixes: FDA device numbers now Windecker 2025 (pmid:40305017), Wu 2021 and the 2024 follow-up keys dropped, also upstream; Waldock (pmid:39915801) described as GPT-3.5’s own errors and a median share of students; the wording study (pmid:42232526) described as persona and wording changed together, second-language writers untested, scale “adapted from” it; tiers “observational”; Rotenstein (pmid:41920565) sample not “offered”; claims 6 and 7 matched to their abstracts; the UCSF 5.8% and an unverifiable NEJM AI bullet (VERIFY) cut; Lukac published key (pmid:41497288) in the answer key.	Not yet read by the author. Checked by the model against PubMed abstracts on 2026-10-12: pmid 40305017, 33820998 and 39187696 (no abstracts), 39915801, 41920565, 41497288, 40672471, 39657021, 39688515, 40675605, 41625485, 41729180, 41037268, 40839265, 38506805, 39466245, 39910272, 38267608, 11453709, 38378899, 37782499, 41633924, 40206627, 37499282, 39909534; full text read for 42232526 and 41511775. The STAT article behind claim 10 is paywalled; its 79 percent was not seen. Not run in ChatGPT Edu: Temporary Chat, the web search option, keeping a template in a project, and both Do sections. Not rendered.
2026-10-12	_quarto.yml (repo-url), index.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, course/friday-groups.qmd, course/learning-journal.qmd, course/learn-with-ai.qmd, course/patient-information.qmd, appendix/open-labs.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, appendix/resources.qmd, appendix/competency-frameworks.qmd, curriculum/chapter-pattern.md, CONTEXT.md	Claude Code (Claude Opus), one batch agent of the 12 October book review (the front door), from a coordinator’s brief: removed repo-url (the repository is private, so the link 404s); syllabus reordered (week 1 first) with a stable “What is expected each week” section (3 hours of sessions plus the Friday group, Learn it with AI, the journal; chapters are a guide), one hours sentence that matches the table (7.5 to 9.5), Friday expected, core chapter suggested, the 30 October clinical-stories group, pass/fail, late work and journal privacy, the week 4 fallback, and a link to the talk slides; Friday and journal pages to match; preface describes the new chapter shape, drops “not optional”, “three months”, the tutor section, and most of the making-of section; Learn it with AI gains a success-first “first 10 minutes” with an invented furosemide check-and-mismatch example and the director’s three habits; patient-information quiz answer names both accounts and the page says it describes US federal law; open labs lose the class vote, the scribe lab defines its own error types and its self-check uses Mrs. Park; targeted fixes in the about, instructors, resources and competency-frameworks appendices; the chapter pattern records the new shape, success first, and a 60-minute budget; CONTEXT records the 12 October decisions. No citation keys added or changed.	Decisions are the author’s, as relayed in the coordinator’s brief; wording is the model’s. Not yet read by the author. Checked by the model: talks.seandavis.net returned 200 and the course repository URL returned 404 (curl, 2026-10-12); _quarto.yml parses; no em-dashes in the student pages; relative links resolve; fenced divs balance; the open-labs table order matches its sections. The furosemide example is standard pharmacology, not checked against a source. Not rendered (the coordinator renders). Canvas journal assignments and chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd still say “where it got in the way” for journal question 2.
2026-10-12	appendix/competency-frameworks.qmd (new), _quarto.yml, one link each in index.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, and chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd (Go deeper)	Wrote a student-facing appendix on AI competency frameworks from research/competency-frameworks.md (August 2026): the AAMC’s competencies (status rechecked today: still in development; drafts circulated for comment April and June 2026, from AAMC posts on LinkedIn), principles, and educator framework; the LCME proposed element (quoted from the LCME PDF, read today); the AMA policy; the Macy recommendations (new key pmid:40424523); a table of five published frameworks (Russell, Hunt, Lee, Singla, DECODE), every number checked against the PubMed abstract; the areas they share; and a crosswalk from AIM-1 to AIM-X to those frameworks. Dropped one claim from the research note (patient communication taught in 21% of programs) because the cited review’s abstract does not support it; replaced it with what the five abstracts show (only Singla names communication as its own area). The IACAI learner matrix is described only generally, because its PDF could not be read by script.	Requested by the author. All links returned 200 today. The crosswalk column is the model’s mapping, based on domain names in the abstracts. Not yet read by a person.
2026-10-12	_quarto.yml, index.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd	Swapped the order of week 1’s two chapters: Plan your four weeks with ChatGPT is now chapter 1 and How these systems work chapter 2, in the book, the preface list and coverage table, and the instructors catalog. No wording changed.	Requested by the author. Render checked.
2026-10-12	course/syllabus.qmd (week 3), CONTEXT.md; Canvas calendar and Week 3 module	Pi (Claude Opus) applied a schedule change from the author: moved Christina Olson’s workshop to Monday October 26, 10 a.m. to noon; deleted the course director’s Monday October 26 talk, which it replaces; added CT Lin’s guest talk on Tuesday October 27 at 11 a.m., with title, time, and recording consent copied from the lecturer signup sheet; updated the week 3 module items and syllabus.	The author chose to drop the Monday talk rather than move it. Canvas changes were read back through the API; the syllabus wording was not yet read by the author.
2026-10-12	Canvas: Thursday October 15 calendar event, six guest-talk events, week 1 to 3 journal assignments, Home page, Week 1 module	Pi (Claude Opus) brought Canvas in line with PRs #90 to #99 through the Canvas API in the author’s browser: retitled the Thursday event “Hands-on: set up your learning with ChatGPT” and linked the plan chapter; copied the five journal questions, sentence starters, resources note, and optional AI-use ledger from course/learning-journal.qmd into the three journal assignments (book links left out, since the book is hidden); on the Home page, replaced “you keep that slot all four Fridays” with weekly signup and described Thursday; removed “attend or watch at least one guest talk a week” from the guest events; published one module item for the plan chapter, the only book page visible to students; moved the hidden core-chapter item under its heading.	The author chose to publish only the plan chapter and to drop the guest-talk sentence. Each change was read back from the Canvas API after saving; no one has yet viewed the pages as a student.
2026-10-12	chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd, _answers/plan-your-learning.md	Replaced the prompt that asked ChatGPT to read the book’s llms.txt with a copyable course list (weeks, core and menu chapters, one phrase each, condensed from the preface) inside the prompt; removed the deep research sentences.	The author said to assume ChatGPT cannot read the site and that research in an ordinary chat is enough. Chapter descriptions checked against the preface and the open-labs entry by the model.
2026-10-12	chapters/plan-your-learning.qmd (new), _answers/plan-your-learning.md (new), course/first-session.qmd (removed), course/syllabus.qmd, course/learning-journal.qmd, index.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, _quarto.yml, CONTEXT.md	Drafted a week 1 chapter for the Thursday hands-on session, “Plan your four weeks with ChatGPT”, from the author’s direction: ChatGPT researches what educators and professional groups say doctors in training should know about AI (student opens two sources), groups it into themes matched to the course’s chapter list, interviews the student, and helps build a four-week plan and journal template; sharing is optional; the plan is revisited each week. The Do follows the six steps of OpenAI’s “Plan something from start to finish” practice on learn.chatgpt.com (step names, 20 to 25 minutes, and “sample data, no accounts connected” read from the page in a browser on 2026-10-12). Moved the setup steps, goals interview, journal-template prompt, and three rules from the Thursday page into the chapter and removed that page and its schedule. Removed section numbers from the syllabus and journal pages, so all course pages are unnumbered. An earlier draft of the chapter (not published) linked ChatGPT Work walkthroughs, described interface details that were not checked, and repeated the Thursday page; it was replaced.	Direction, the chapter-over-page decision, and dropping the schedule are the author’s. CU Edu features (Projects on by default; Work on request) are from the 2026-10-09 notes, not checked in the Edu workspace today. Not checked: whether ChatGPT Edu can open aim.seandavis.net/llms.txt (the chapter gives a fallback), whether deep research is on in Edu (the chapter says “some accounts”), and file downloads from chat. Author to run the prompts once before Thursday. Full render has no warnings.
2026-10-12	course/learning-journal.qmd, course/first-session.qmd, course/learn-with-ai.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, one sentence each in chapters/core-bias-equity.qmd and chapters/enrichment-environment.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Replaced the four journal questions with five open ones from the author’s list: what I chose to learn; how AI helped and where it got in the way, with one time the student felt they needed to check it; what surprised me; what changed for me (pick one or two of understanding, use, talking with colleagues or patients); what I used and whether it was worth it, with links. Question 5 absorbs the three resources a week. Added sentence starters for each question and an example line for question 5 (its URL checked live). Updated the Thursday template prompt, the instructors appendix (with a note that question 5 doubles as weekly course feedback), and the three pages that pointed to “one thing I checked”.	Questions, the check wording, and merging the resources into question 5 are the author’s decisions; the model proposed folding the check into question 2 and “pick one or two” in question 4, and the author agreed. Sentence starters are the model’s. Rendered pages checked for warnings. The Canvas journal assignments still carry the old questions.
2026-10-12	chapters/core-foundations.qmd, _answers/core-foundations.md, theme/textbook.scss, images/covid-xray-average-images-degrave-2020.jpg, images/covid-xray-saliency-degrave-2020.jpg	Claude Code (Claude Opus) brought the chapter in line with the trimmed deck, to the author’s brief: removed the TensorFlow Playground exercise and every mention of it; removed the context-window section, its objective, Do part, Check row, summary bullet and the lost-in-the-middle reading; ported two interactive figures from the deck as {ojs} cells (fit the eGFR-style curve by hand with two sliders and a best-fit button; the overfitting slider, now Do Part A) with palette-based styles for light and dark mode; added a COVID-19 chest X-ray example of a test set that shared the training set’s flaw (Roberts 2021 on pediatric pneumonia controls; DeGrave 2021 and its 2020 preprint on shortcuts), with two figures from the preprint, whose CC BY 4.0 licence was confirmed on the medRxiv API (v1 and v2) and the PMC page (PMC7523163), Figure 2 cropped to panel a; added “Ask it to check” (prompt, three findings with the deck’s citations, and the limit that it cannot check the patient), a new objective 5, Do Part C and its Check row; at the author’s later request removed every instruction to turn web search on or off; recomputed the time line (about 90 minutes); rewrote the answer key for Parts A and C from the widget’s own numbers (read in a headless browser and in node), with a tutor note on the COVID framing; also made .script blocks wrap long lines (their inner <code> kept white-space: pre). Rendered the chapter and the book with no errors; drove both widgets by script in light and dark mode and screenshotted them	The author has not yet read the new sections. The COVID facts come from the two papers as quoted in the author’s brief and from the preprint text; the full papers were not read end to end, and the figure captions follow the preprint’s own legends. The Pastucha finding is worded from its abstract (the two web-search versions beat the four without search, which are different versions, not the same chatbots). “Most chatbots now have web search built in” and “in most setups the chatbot cannot see the chart” are the author’s framing, with no source cited
2026-10-12	slides/core-foundations.qmd, slides/core-foundations-narration.md	At the author’s request, added to “Ask it to check” (and its notes and the summary) that in most setups the chatbot cannot see the patient’s chart, so facts about the patient are still the student’s to check and chart-aware checking is still to come; shortened the slide’s other three points to fit; regenerated the narration	Author pointed out the limit. “In most setups” is the author’s framing; no source is cited for it
2026-10-11	slides/core-foundations.qmd, slides/core-foundations-narration.md, slides/theme.scss, appendix/about.qmd, _quarto.yml	At the author’s request, removed the three context-window slides (fixed size, lost in the middle, two rules for the keyboard) and added “Ask it to check”: a prompt asking the chatbot to verify its facts and citations with web search, links and quotes, plus three findings. Looked up and resolved the three new citations (Pastucha 2026, PMID 41546380, web-search versions gave more accurate references; Dhuliawala 2024, ACL Findings, Chain-of-Verification reduced hallucinations; Wu 2025, PMID 40240349, about 30% of GPT-4o-with-search statements unsupported) and read the abstracts. Reworded the objective, the bridge on “Nothing in this process checks”, On the wards, the standing question and the summary to lead with asking the chatbot to check; renumbered the run sheet (40 slides); regenerated the narration. Also fixed a duplicated resources: key in _quarto.yml left by merging main, which stopped the book from rendering	Author asked to drop the context-window material and to stress that chatbots can be asked to check facts and citations. The slide’s claims follow the abstracts; the full papers were not read end to end. The context window is still taught in the RAG enrichment chapter
2026-10-11	slides/core-foundations.qmd, slides/core-foundations-narration.md, appendix/about.qmd	At the author’s request, removed the “Try it after class” TensorFlow Playground slide and replaced “Go deeper” with a four-panel “Further exploration” slide (Playground exercise, 3Blue1Brown, Karpathy, the NEJM dataset-shift letter); renumbered the run sheet; regenerated the narration (now about 60 minutes on your own); checked the dataset-shift PMID and DOI in PubMed	Author chose to drop the slide and asked for 3 to 4 further-exploration items; the video dates and lengths are carried over from the earlier reviewed deck, not rechecked
2026-10-11	slides/theme.scss, slides/_quarto.yml, slides/core-foundations.qmd, slides/core-foundations-narration.md (regenerated), slides/narration.py, a docstring in slides/make_figures.py	Claude Code (Claude Opus) moved the Wednesday deck onto the Tuesday history deck’s look, to the author’s brief: rebuilt the theme on Quarto’s light theme with Tuesday’s palette and components and a per-day accent (Wednesday teal); took Tuesday’s 1600 × 900 revealjs settings; reformatted slides into panels, centred text slides, teal-deep dividers with “Part” kickers, and larger tables and figures, keeping .smaller on 8 of 20 slides; recoloured the widget charts from the palette. A format pass: no slide was added, removed, or reordered, and no claim, number, or citation changed. Three sentences were reworded because they named dark-theme colours: two in notes (“the blue curve”, “the hollow orange dots”), one pause cue (“the green space”), plus the fit-the-curve legend; the narration was regenerated and only those sentences changed. The figures from make_figures.py were left as they were and regenerate byte-identical. Every slide was rendered and screenshotted at 1600 × 900 with all fragments shown, by a script that flags anything past the slide edge (none remain); each widget was driven by script: the 57 quiz (right and wrong answers), the eGFR dials and “Show the best fit” (a = 75, b = 1.05, average miss 6.1), the four-model sorter (all right, then one wrong), the flexibility slider (1, 3, 11), the tokenizer (typed sentence re-split by the live library), the next-word sampler (temperature 0.2 and 2, picking to the end, start over), and the context-window sliders (full and not full)	Author to view the deck in a browser and approve the look. Not checked by a person: legibility on a projector or over Zoom screen share, and the choice of “Part 1, continued” as the second divider’s kicker
2026-10-11	slides/core-foundations.qmd, slides/core-foundations-narration.md (regenerated), slides/make_figures.py and images/ai-nested-circles.svg, slides/theme.scss, one sentence in appendix/about.qmd	Claude Code (Claude Opus) cut the deck from 75 to 60 minutes live, to the author’s list of changes: removed the chatbot exercise, the HEART quiz, the optional Transformer Explainer, and the Playground breakout; replaced the breakout with a self-paced “Try it after class” slide; added the nested circles (AI, machine learning, deep learning, generative AI), the “Fit the curve yourself” slider widget, a flexibility versus interpretability slide, the three-set rule, and a sepsis callback to Tuesday’s talk; rewrote the run sheet, objectives, timing table, and slide-number references. The HEART exchange slide now names the 2013 and 2008 papers itself; their PubMed records (PMIDs 23465250, 18665203) were read for title, journal, and year. The widget’s 40 points are generated in the browser from a made-up curve and labelled illustrative; its form, GFR = a × creatinine^−b, is not the CKD-EPI equation and no real coefficients are claimed. Every slide was rendered and screenshotted at 1050 × 700 in headless Chrome with a script that flags overflow; the widget was driven by script (moving each slider changed the average miss; “Show the best fit” set a = 75, b = 1.05)	Author to view the deck and run the slider widget before Wednesday. Not checked by a person: the circle examples (MYCIN as hand-written rules, chest X-ray models as deep learning), which are uncited general statements; that Tuesday’s talk shows the Epic sepsis study, which the slide now assumes; and the 57-minute run sheet, which is an estimate, not a rehearsal
2026-10-12	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd	When merging PR #90 with main, moved the paragraph on health-system AI rules to the end of the reworked “Consent he can actually refuse” section, since the section it followed had been rewritten. Wording unchanged.	Placement in the ethics chapter confirmed by the author 2026-10-12; position within it is the model’s.
2026-10-12	images/discord-icon.svg, _quarto.yml (book.favicon)	An AI tool drew the course icon (SVG), used for the Discord server and as the book’s favicon.	The author confirmed on 2026-10-12 that an AI tool drew it.
2026-10-12	course/friday-groups.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, index.qmd, chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, curriculum/competencies.md, curriculum/design-constraints.md, CONTEXT.md	Cut the Friday groups page to a short description of open, student-led discussion: removed the hour plan, the card instructions, the shared-Project note, and all scenario cards, keeping the no-patient-details line and the week 4 presentations. Moved the cards and other discussion ideas to a comment on issue #95. Rewrote the lines that pointed to the cards (syllabus rows, home page coverage note, patient chapter objective and closing paragraph, instructors table) and noted that AIM-3 (bias) lost its only certain coverage.	Requested by the author (issue #95). The author has not yet read the new wording.
2026-10-12	course/syllabus.qmd (Thursday October 15 row), _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md	Replaced the Thursday row’s link to the unpublished centaur-or-cyborg chapter with the new Thursday activity (goals and journal, as in PR #93, without its page link), so the raw chapter file is no longer copied to the site; updated the ethics answer key for the reworded fourth sentence	Author decided to drop the chapter; wording of the Thursday row follows PR #93, which the author has seen
2026-10-12	_quarto.yml, index.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, chapters/enrichment-prompting-lab.qmd, CONTEXT.md	At the author’s direction, stopped publishing the centaur-or-cyborg chapter (file and answer key kept). Removed every link to it from published pages, made How these systems work the week 1 core in the index, syllabus, and instructors tables, removed its competency and module rows, and changed the chapter count from eleven to ten. Rewrote the ethics chapter’s “reread the sentence you wrote in week 1” as a fourth sentence to write now. Pointed the two instructor mentions of ambient documentation to the ethics chapter.	The decision is the author’s. A script confirmed that the only published link left is the syllabus Thursday October 15 row, left for PR #93, and that the render has no warnings. The reworded sentences have not yet been read by a person.
2026-10-11	course/first-session.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd (Thursday row), _quarto.yml, CONTEXT.md	Drafted the Thursday hands-on page and its two starter prompts (learning goals interview; journal template that keeps the four course questions) from the author’s direction; checked the Edu sign-in and Projects details against the project notes from 2026-10-09	Author chose the session’s purpose (something useful first, not error-hunting) and asked for the page. The Projects steps were not tried in the Edu workspace by the assistant; author to run both prompts once before class
2026-10-10	course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas Friday signups, module items, welcome announcement	At the author’s direction, made every Friday a Canvas signup like October 16 (four one-hour times, up to 15 students each, one per student), deleted the twelve plain Friday events, retitled the week 2 to 4 module links, and added to the welcome announcement that the signup opens Sunday, October 11 and is weekly. Changed the syllabus attendance line from “your signed-up slot” to a weekly signup.	The weekly model and the announcement line are the author’s decisions; the model’s wording has not yet been read by the author. Signup settings checked through the Canvas API.
2026-10-10	course/learning-journal.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Revised two edits from earlier the same day at the author’s direction: the three-resources paragraph now asks for three a week, anything related to AI, one line each, and says it is meant to be low-key; the Thursday October 15 session now covers signing in to ChatGPT Edu only (Copilot and OpenEvidence dropped).	The decisions are the author’s (three a week, low-key, ChatGPT Edu only); the wording is the model’s and has not yet been read by the author.
2026-10-10	course/learning-journal.qmd	Added an optional activity, “keep an AI-use ledger”: while making something with AI (for example, week 4 slides), keep a line-by-line list of what you did and what the AI did, then ask the chatbot to turn it into a short statement of how the work was made, and correct that statement. Links this appendix as the example. Drafted from the course director’s description in the 2026-10-09 meeting transcript; the starting prompt and the “read and correct it” step are the model’s.	The activity is the course director’s idea; wording, placement, and prompt are the model’s. Not yet read by a person at commit; for review in the pull request.
2026-10-10	course/learning-journal.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Replaced the optional “share a resource” paragraph with an expected one: three resources of the student’s own choosing across the four weeks, any topic, medical or not, one or two sentences each in that week’s entry. The data-center example is the course director’s, from the 2026-10-09 meeting transcript.	Keeping the open assignment is the course director’s (meeting). Three across the course rather than per week, and expected rather than optional, are the model’s reading, approved by the coordinating agent; flagged for the author in the pull request. Not yet read by a person at commit.
2026-10-10	course/syllabus.qmd, course/friday-groups.qmd, CONTEXT.md	From the 2026-10-09 meeting transcript: the Thursday October 15 session now opens with signing in to ChatGPT Edu, the School of Medicine’s Copilot, and OpenEvidence (set-up instructions “will be posted in Canvas”; none written), then the hands-on session as before. Friday October 30 small groups are “bring your clinical stories”, student-led, with Christina Olson in two slots and Matt Zuckerman in one afternoon slot; the week 3 cards stay as a fallback (the model’s choice, after Christina Olson’s offer to bring examples if students have none).	Session content and who attends are from the co-directors in the meeting; wording, and keeping the onboarding and the hands-on session together, are the model’s. Not yet read by a person at commit; for review in the pull request.
2026-10-10	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd	Added a short paragraph after the patient-consent section: your health system, not your medical school, sets its own rules on AI use (for example, whether a patient can refuse an AI tool or a recording); Children’s Colorado and UCHealth differ; the rules change; follow them. Drafted from Christina Olson’s request in the 2026-10-09 meeting transcript.	The request and its content are Christina Olson’s; placement and wording are the model’s. Not yet read by a person at commit; for review in the pull request.
2026-10-10	course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas calendar, modules, home page	Added an optional 90-minute hands-on session, “Watch and do: try it live, together” (subtitle chosen by the model), Wednesdays 2 to 3:30 p.m. in weeks 2 to 4, content to be announced: three calendar events, one item per weekly module in day order, a home page Schedule bullet, and a syllabus table row. Marked recorded, following the author’s default that sessions are recorded.	Session, day, time, and title are the author’s; the subtitle and wording are the model’s. Canvas read back.
2026-10-10	course/syllabus.qmd, course/friday-groups.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas home page and modules	Replaced “attendance is expected” with the author’s choose-your-own model: aim for about 3 hours a week of sessions, live or recorded, by interest; Friday small groups best effort (were “required”) in the syllabus table, the Friday groups page, the Canvas home page, and the four Friday module headings; talks and guest sessions marked “Your choice” in the weekly table, whose hours still sum to 7.5 to 9.5. Removed “attend or watch one guest talk a week”.	Policy (3 hours, Friday best effort, applies to every week) is the author’s; wording is the model’s. Canvas read back.
2026-10-09	course/syllabus.qmd, course/friday-groups.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas	Stated what is recorded: week 1 lectures, talks, and guest sessions yes; office hours and Friday small groups no. Added this to 20 Canvas calendar events, the Friday signup, the week 1 module, and the home page; to the syllabus tables and week 1 text; and to the Friday groups page, with a reason the model added (“so you can try things out loud and get them wrong”). Removed “Recordings count as attending” from the instructors appendix and CONTEXT, which the earlier attendance change had missed.	Recording decisions are the author’s. Canvas read back.
2026-10-09	course/syllabus.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas	Week 2 Wednesday (October 21, 10 a.m.) is now “Professional work with AI: writing and beyond” by Christina Olson (Canvas event retitled, Week 2 module item added). Removed the class vote everywhere, with its VERIFY flag; week 3 Wednesday is “to be announced” between its two topics (the model’s wording).	Talk, speaker, and dropping the vote are the author’s decisions. Canvas read back.
2026-10-09	course/syllabus.qmd; Canvas home page	Rewrote the attendance rule from the author’s statement: attendance is expected; register absences with the school (SOM) through its protocols, with nothing said about contacting the course director (at the author’s request); the course is flexible at this time of year; students own their learning, so in rare cases life or another learning opportunity may come first, and the recordings help them catch up. Removed “watching the recording counts as attending” (syllabus and Canvas) and “Yes, live or the recording” from the weekly table. Added an Attendance section to the Canvas home page pointing to the SOM policies link already on the page. The book says “your school’s process”, not CU’s, so it stands alone for other schools.	Policy is the author’s; wording is the model’s. Canvas page read back. Single-page render checked.
2026-10-09	Canvas discussions and home page	Restored one discussion, renamed “General Questions” with a new one-line description, showed Discussions in the student menu again, and linked it from the home page Communications section.	Requested by the author. Read back after saving.
2026-10-09	Canvas home page, navigation, discussions, office-hours events	Retired the three Canvas discussions (unpublished; they were empty), hid Discussions from the student menu, showed Announcements (it had been hidden), rewrote the home page Communications section to point to announcements, office hours, and email, and removed the “post in the Q&A discussion” line from the four office-hours events.	Requested by the author. Read back after saving.
2026-10-09	Canvas course IDPT 8079 A39F	Published the Canvas course to students with all links to the book hidden: unpublished the book items and chapter headers in the modules, removed book links from calendar event descriptions, the Friday signup, the home page, and the ChatGPT Edu page; wrote the journal instructions (from course/learning-journal.qmd, lightly condensed) into the four journal assignments; replaced the home page syllabus link with “posted soon”; unpublished last year’s four published pages. A scripted sweep found no remaining book links in anything students can see.	Requested by the author, who chose item-level hiding (after briefly asking for whole modules hidden) and asked for publishing. The author has not yet viewed the course as a student.
2026-10-09	Canvas page “Get your ChatGPT Edu account”, Start here module, home page	Wrote a student page on getting a CU ChatGPT Edu account, condensed from CU’s official guide (KB article 20156, read in the author’s browser that day): training link, invitation within 24 hours, what to do with an existing free or paid ChatGPT account, sign-in steps, how to check for the CU - Anschutz (Edu) workspace, troubleshooting, and the two course rules. Added the advice to use Copilot if access is not ready by October 15 (the model’s suggestion). Put it first in Start here under “Before October 15” and linked it from the home page.	Requested by the author. Every step and link matches CU’s guide as read on 2026-10-09; the page says to follow CU’s guide if they differ. The author has not yet read it.
2026-10-09	Canvas home page and discussions, IDPT 8079 A39F	Rewrote the top half of the Canvas home page: added the dates and Zoom link at the top; a paragraph pointing to the book as a structure for independent learning; a schedule section (week 1, weeks 2 to 4, drop-in office hours, Friday signup, guest talks, journal); a section on university AI accounts and made-up cases; replaced the old Word syllabus with the book syllabus; replaced the “completion of minimal assignments” grading line with the complete/incomplete journal; replaced “attendance is expected at all sessions” with the book’s rule. Kept the author’s course description, discussion descriptions, grading bullets, and code of conduct, fixing one typo. Created the three standing discussions in this year’s course and copied the two organizer photos from last year’s course, because the old links pointed to course 568219. School resource sections unchanged.	Requested by the author. Page read back and viewed; all links now point to this course or the book. The author has not yet reviewed the wording.
2026-10-09	course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas	Made office hours drop-in, Thursdays 11 to 11:45 a.m. in all four weeks, replacing the week 1 signup sheet (no one had signed up). Canvas events are titled “Office hours: Sean Davis (drop in)” and suggest posting a question in the Q&A discussion beforehand (the model’s wording). Syllabus updated to match.	Drop-in format, times, and naming are the author’s. Canvas events read back after saving.
2026-10-09	course/friday-groups.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Removed the promise of breakout rooms of four or five from the Friday hour; the middle 30 minutes now just name the two scenario cards.	Requested by the author (breakout rooms may or may not be used).
2026-10-09	course/friday-groups.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, CONTEXT.md; Canvas	Changed Friday small groups from three to four time slots (adds 2 p.m.) with up to 17 students each, then 15 after checking enrolment (49): updated the Canvas signup sheet and added 2 p.m. events for October 23, October 30, and November 6; updated the slot count in the book and the instructor’s weekly live hours (5.75 to 6.75).	Slot count, time, and cap are the author’s. The hours arithmetic is the model’s. Canvas changes read back after saving.
2026-10-09	course/learning-journal.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md; the Canvas course IDPT 8079 A39F	Changed where journals are submitted from the planned Microsoft Form (two VERIFY flags removed) to Canvas. In Canvas, through the API with the author’s session: unpublished last year’s 10 assignments, deleted last year’s four modules, created four complete/incomplete journal assignments, five modules linking the book and the Zoom meeting, calendar events for every live session, and signup sheets for week 1 office hours and the Friday small-group slot. Using one Zoom link for the Friday groups are the model’s choices.	Requested by the author, who chose what to remove, the assignment type, and the Friday times. Every Canvas object was read back after creation; all 17 book links return 200. The author has not yet viewed the course in Canvas.
2026-10-09	course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Rewrote the week 1 schedule for the author’s decisions: live sessions Monday to Thursday at 10 a.m. Mountain time; Thursday October 15 is a new hands-on session, “centaur or cyborg, live” (the model proposed it and linked it to the week 1 core chapter; the description was then cut back to open-ended at the author’s request, and a line about the journal removed), followed by office hours by signup; Friday small groups in signed-up slots. Added 10 a.m. Mountain time to the weeks 2 to 4 Monday and Wednesday talks and changed the table caption to say office hours times and the guest schedule are in Canvas. Recorded the decisions in CONTEXT.	Days, times, topics, and the choice of the hands-on session are the author’s (answered in session). The session description and wording are the model’s. Single-page render checked. Not yet reviewed in place.
2026-10-08	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md, chapters/core-foundations.qmd, chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, chapters/core-bias-equity.qmd, chapters/enrichment-environment.qmd, chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd, chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd, chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, index.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, course/syllabus.qmd, course/patient-information.qmd	Claude Code (Opus 5.5) rebalanced the week 4 core chapter from liability to ethics, on the director’s approved outline from the research note on the ethics of AI documentation (PR #84). Retitled it ‘Ethics: what you owe when you sign the note’ and wrote new sections: a note is a promise; does review fix it (Jabbour and its figure kept); consent he can actually refuse; who the tool fails; your relief, his risk; what happens to the recording; and a short ‘what the law adds’. Introduced a fourth recurring lesson (who benefits, who bears the risk, who decides) and named it with one sentence each in the bias, environment, and workforce chapters, the index, and the instructors appendix; changed ‘three recurring lessons’ to ‘four’ in five chapters. Moved the four elements, the learned intermediary, the 2x2, the juror studies, attestation, and cleared-is-not-validated to an optional Go deeper section, with their citation keys and wording kept except for joining sentences. The Do now asks for the student’s own apixaban plan before the draft’s, adds ‘Do I have to say yes?’ to the role-play, and ends with a short ‘what you owe’ step. Added 17 citation keys; the tool looked up each in PubMed this session and read the abstract, or the full text in PubMed Central for the three with no abstract (Armitage, Chen 2024, O’Neil), and checked each sentence against it. Updated link text to the chapter across the book and rewrote the answer key to match. Resolved all keys and rendered every touched page without warnings. Then applied two independent reviews (a fresh Claude agent that checked all 17 keys in PubMed, and Gemini): added the duty to explain a possibly harmful error through the disclosure process; a short paragraph on telling patients a tool drafted a note, with one new key (pmid:39054373, abstract read: two preregistered experiments, n = 2,280, made-up scenarios) and the AMA November 2024 policy quoted from the AMA’s own PDF; removed ‘see more patients’ from the McGaughey-cited benefit and added the patient’s possible benefit with its null masked comparison; softened the time-saving claim; added the Taylor pilot’s population; restored the scribe BAA question; named and linked the fourth lesson in the foundations and appraisal chapters; made the instructors appendix consistent (first three in week 1, fourth previewed); plain-language fixes; shortened the made-up case and the Canadian survey; restated time as about 70 minutes (instructors table 75 to 70); answer-key fixes (naproxen as a likely contributor, AI features, location of the no-verdict sentence).	No person has read it yet. Needs the author’s read, in particular of the new ethics sections, the fourth-lesson wording, and the stated word count and time. Reviewers: a fresh Claude agent (all 17 original keys checked in PubMed) and Gemini; their findings were applied by the tool, not checked by a person.
2026-10-08	course/syllabus.qmd, course/learn-with-ai.qmd, appendix/open-labs.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, CONTEXT.md, curriculum/design-constraints.md	Rewrote the weeks 2 to 4 routine for the author’s decision to lecture more: Monday and Wednesday talks, live and recorded, with the core chapter as the talk’s companion; a class vote on the Wednesday topic in place of the voted open lab; Thursday office hours (stated as not recorded, a choice the model made); recordings count as attending. Added the starting topic grid, marked as subject to change. Restated the weekly hours so the table adds up (7.5 to 9.5 expected): Learn it with AI cut from 3 to 6 to 2 to 4 hours, and guest talks from two a week to one. Opened the open labs as self-paced activities. Recorded the reason, the earlier reasoning, and the director’s workload in CONTEXT and constraint 5. Removed em-dashes from CONTEXT and the design constraints. Then, in course/learn-with-ai.qmd, course/patient-information.qmd, and course/friday-groups.qmd: added that the university account is created after required AI training and that a personal ChatGPT account is not covered; made the CU business associate agreement example precise (Anschutz and Denver campuses, not Boulder), with the general rule first and the reason for the made-up-cases rule; added an optional line on a shared ChatGPT Edu Project for Friday groups.	Decision, reasons, and topic grid are the author’s. The hour cuts and the office-hours recording status are the model’s choices, listed in the PR for the author to confirm. The ChatGPT Edu facts come from a check on 2026-10-08 of CU’s public pages and the author’s logged-in Edu workspace; the author confirmed the agreement’s campus scope. Shared Projects for student accounts are not yet confirmed. Not yet reviewed in place.
2026-10-08	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md	Revised the week 4 core chapter around “who answers for the note”: about 6,100 to 3,800 words before Go deeper. The Do is new: the student drafts a note for Mr. Alvarez’s made-up visit with a chatbot (a script written for this revision), improves the prompt, marks each sentence said/not said/changed, decides what to sign and what to do about the unresolved apixaban plan, then practises explaining the scribe to the patient by role-play. FDA device criteria, the flowchart, PCCP, HTI-1/HTI-5, the EU AI Act, the insurer callout, and a shortened “has it moved?” hunt moved to an optional Go deeper section; the Elsa aside, “What you keep” (deskilling, now in week 1), and the not-using-a-tool paragraph were cut. All kept figures, CSS artifacts, and citation keys are unchanged; no key added. The model compared condensed sentences with the original and softened four (“Today, no” to “probably not today”; a verdict claim to “as far as this course could find”; “a paragraph of reasoning” to “showing the model’s reasoning”, since Jabbour’s explanations were images; “everyone since” to “most later work”). The CU Anschutz BAA sentence now leads with “check your institution’s policy” (issue #66). Answer key rewritten to match. A second commit applied an independent reviewer agent’s findings: the scribe-and-device sentence reworded to keep its hedge and agree with the FDA criteria; the Jabbour lines scoped to image-based explanations and a biased model (heading changed); the illustrative note’s CHA2DS2-VASc corrected from 4 to 2; the juror sentence now says members of the public and physicians; “the framework most later work uses” became “a widely used framework”; an unsourced workload claim removed from the answer key; two more issue #66 hedges; an unchecked claim about drafts removed; the box answer moved out of the chapter into the answer key; long sentences split; reading time stated as 15 to 20 minutes. A third commit applied a cross-model review (Gemini): restored the 2026 juror study’s populations; replaced the Check’s Jabbour row, which the Do no longer produces, with the reading rule the Do asks for; softened the unsourced “about a dozen” all-party-consent states to “several states, California among them”.	Revision requested by the author. Reviewer: a fresh agent with no stake. The single-chapter render resolves every key. The author has not yet read it.
2026-10-08	chapters/enrichment-prompting-lab.qmd, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md, one lab in appendix/open-labs.qmd, one row in curriculum/chapter-plan.md	Revised the prompting lab as the week 2 core chapter for the skill-first refocus: retitled “Prompting lab: getting good answers, and knowing their limits” (matching the syllabus); the opening now credits what Sam’s structured prompt did well before the D-dimer error; added Part A, a five-part prompt on the student’s own learning task, changed one part at a time and kept as a template; Part B (one case, two prompts) checks one claim instead of two and drops reference scoring; low-back-pain, oncology, 33-physician, and NEJM AI studies and the pharmacy study’s numbers moved to Go deeper; body about 4,800 to 4,100 words as read by one student (about 3,750 after the review pass). Chat pair, four cases, four traps, both figures, the five-part table, and the citation key set are unchanged. The model compared condensed sentences with the original and with two PubMed abstracts (pmid:39466245, pmid:39910272), softened two unsourced claims (“the single most useful thing”, “nearly always the last one”) into stated guesses, and corrected the open lab that described the prompting lab as three tools. Answer key updated for Part A, the single check, and the new objectives. Then applied an independent reviewer agent’s and a Gemini cross-model review’s findings: second Goh trial restated as no significant difference between model alone and physicians with it (not “matched”), with the two-minute time cost restored; Chen called an author of both trials and senior author of the first (PubMed author order checked); pharmacy study labelled single-centre observational (PubMed abstract checked) and moved with the orthopaedics study to Go deeper; an unsourced explanation and a table caption reworded as the chapter’s view; figure caption notes Context can affect correctness; time restated as about 75 minutes; trap-release time made consistent; the open lab changed to the Part B case in a second tool plus the other three cases; trials section and duplicates cut.	Revision requested by the author. Reviewers: a fresh Claude agent and Gemini. The author has not yet read the chapter.
2026-10-08	chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, _answers/core-patient-communication.md, appendix/open-labs.qmd	Trimmed the week 3 core chapter for the skill-first refocus: about 5,600 to 4,000 words of prose, stated time about 70 minutes (Part B raised from 20 to 25 to 30 minutes). Kept the scenario, both figures, the illustrative printout and portal message, the refusal table, the spine, and the Part B role-play and observer prompts verbatim; kept every citation key and added none. Part A now has the student write the spine, the mammogram sentences, and the old Part C sentence, then asks a chatbot to flag jargon and unsupported claims without rewriting; the Do ends with a kept card for the week 3 Friday group. Moved the drafted-reply workload studies, the state-law details, and the authorship-label finding to Go deeper; cut the live-session section, the ‘published number is the optimistic one’ and ‘seventh question’ references to the appraisal chapter, one podcast, and a talk with an unresolved VERIFY. Removed one unsourced claim (that honesty about what you do not know best predicts patient trust). Compared each condensed factual sentence with the original and restored two lost hedges (the Zurich study’s author-versus-delivery limit; ‘general-purpose’ chatbot). Marked the open lab ‘The patient who talks back’ Ready and linked it to Part B. Answer key updated to match; single-chapter render clean. Then applied an independent reviewer agent’s findings: the lawsuit’s ICU admission attributed to the complaint; restored the Zurich study’s ‘general information from the internet’ label as a second explanation; corrected the McLaughlin summary (spine-surgery questions, matching not identical wording, only the four general-purpose tools did worse); softened an unsourced inference about consent in non-English visits; restored the Duke interviewees’ disagreement on when and how, the second-language sentence, the free-tier training clause, and ‘log consent’; US spelling; restated time as about 70 minutes. Added an optional spoken version of the Part B role-play using the chatbot’s voice mode (ChatGPT Edu voice mode confirmed by the director 2026-10-08). A second, cross-model reviewer (Gemini) had found two unsourced claims, now hedged (why patients bring printouts; patients hearing two facts as one), and a sentence that had lost its citations when the drafted-reply studies moved to Go deeper; their two existing keys were added back.	Revision requested by the author. Reviewer: a fresh agent with no stake, which checked the McLaughlin and Duke interview records in PubMed. The author has not yet read it.
2026-10-08	chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd, one phrase in chapters/core-appraisal.qmd	Applied an independent reviewer agent’s findings on the revision: corrected a causal overclaim about AI-drafted replies (pmid:38506805 reports task load and exhaustion, not reading behaviour) and restored “reply time did not change”; restored the never-skilling trial’s population (high-school math students), “least able to”, the attribution of the six habits, and “no trial yet” for mis-skilling; removed an unsourced “moves every few months”; fixed the cross-chapter link broken by the reorder; raised Part A to about 35 minutes, gave task 1 a default paper (title checked in PubMed), made the hint prompt the student’s own, and added a Check row for it; restored two definitions; added an invitation to try task 1 before reading.	Reviewer: a fresh agent with no stake, which also checked three abstracts in PubMed. The author has not yet read the chapter.
2026-10-08	chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd, _answers/core-centaur-cyborg.md	Revised the week 1 core chapter for the skill-first refocus: about 5,000 to 3,000 words; the Do now starts with three everyday tasks done well (journal club, patient handout, hint-and-quiz) and ends with a kept prompt, and the sort is cut from eight tasks with five columns to four; the six habits and Who/Where/What kept; learner-study detail, DEFT-AI, the Kasparov aside, and the long rules section cut or moved to Go deeper. All kept figures, the draft note, and citation keys are unchanged. The model compared condensed sentences with the original and softened three that overstated their sources. Answer key rewritten to match.	Revision requested by the author. An independent reviewer agent checks it before the author reads it.
2026-10-08	course/learn-with-ai.qmd, course/friday-groups.qmd (new), course/learning-journal.qmd (replaces the resource log)	Drafted three pages for the skill-first refocus the author decided: a “Learn it with AI” starter kit (eight prompts adapted in part from the resource log’s reading-companion prompts, plus one check a week and tips for when stuck); Friday small-group format and scenario cards by week, including three scenarios proposed by a co-director and a bias card that carries AIM-3 this offering; and a learning journal of four questions per week with a week 4 “what you will keep” piece.	Direction, mantra, and decisions are the author’s. The author has not yet read the pages.
2026-10-08	course/syllabus.qmd, index.qmd, _quarto.yml, appendix/instructors.qmd, link text in two chapters and appendix/resources.qmd	Restructured the book around one core chapter a week plus a menu, the author’s mantra, and a 5 to 10 hour weekly routine with a Monday “How I used AI this week” segment; reordered the book’s parts and the preface coverage table; rewrote the instructors appendix’s default assembly, week routine, and journal sections. Chapter text otherwise unchanged.	Structure decided by the author in conversation. Not yet reviewed in place.
2026-10-08	curriculum/design-constraints.md, curriculum/competencies.md, CONTEXT.md, appendix/about.qmd, research/independent-review-2026-10-08.md	Recorded the reversal of constraint 5 (now skill and confidence first) with its reasons, the fall 2026 AIM-3 exception, and the refocus in CONTEXT and the About page. Committed the independent review, written by a fresh agent with no session context; the coordinating model spot-checked its word counts and citation counts against the source.	The author asked for the independent review and decided the refocus.
2026-10-08	appendix/about.qmd, index.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd	Corrected the claim that the source repository is public (it is private): the About page says it will be made public, “in the open” phrasing removed, and the two repository links say private for now.	Found by the model; the author confirmed the fix.
2026-10-07	Subtitles of five chapters (appraisal, workforce, environment, ethics, grounding); module catalogs in appendix/instructors.qmd and curriculum/schedule.md	Changed the competency tags to the main subjects found in research/competency-coverage-2026-10-07.md, so subtitles, catalogs, and the preface table agree; rewrote the coverage-check sentence in both catalogs.	Requested by the author. Tags only; no other wording changed.
2026-10-07	index.qmd (coverage table and two paragraphs), appendix/about.qmd	Rebuilt the preface’s competency table from research/competency-coverage-2026-10-07.md (content, not subtitle tags; primary versus secondary; course pages and the scribe lab added) and rewrote the counts under it. Replaced the step-by-step account in “How this book was made” with a four-phase summary and a new section synthesising this ledger: the division of labor, errors caught and fixed, checks that could not be done, and facts that came only from people. Noted that the October pages have not had the six-reader review.	Requested by the author. Table cells checked by the model against the review’s matrix; the matrix itself was graded by one model and awaits a person’s sample check. The author has not yet read the new text.
2026-10-07	appendix/resources.qmd (new section)	Added “Your applications and your coursework”: the AMA News article on AI in residency applications (Sept 9, 2026) and the AAMC’s Principles for the Responsible Use of AI in Medical Education (v2.0, July 2025), the two gaps found in research/student-interests-survey-2026-10-07.md. Both pages were opened and their content checked; the AAMC entry says plainly that it is written for schools and does not set student rules.	The author approved adding both. Not yet reviewed in place.
2026-10-07	course/syllabus.qmd, CONTEXT.md	Rewrote the syllabus to the fall 2026 plan agreed with the author in conversation: week 1 taught live, weeks 2 to 4 with a Monday hour, a voted open lab, guest talks, Thursday resource log, and required Friday small groups; dates filled in; submission link left as a [VERIFY] flag. Recorded the decisions, enrolment, co-director roles, and the lifted guest cap in CONTEXT.md.	Structure decided by the author. The author has not yet reviewed the wording.
2026-10-07	appendix/resources.qmd (new), _quarto.yml, one sentence in course/resource-log.qmd	A subagent selected 36 starter resources from the 653 unique links students submitted to the resource log in 2024 and 2025 (student names and emails not read), grouped them by the book’s themes, and wrote one sentence each. 18 PMID keys checked in PubMed, 3 DOI keys through Crossref; videos and web pages opened and matched. Publisher pages that block bots (NEJM, JAMA) could not be checked for paywalls; three podcast lengths are not stated; these are listed in a comment at the end of the file.	The render resolved every citation key. The model spot-checked entries. The author has not yet reviewed the selection.
2026-10-07	appendix/open-labs.qmd	Added two lab ideas drawn from the author’s October 2025 vibe-coding session deck (build the tool you wish existed; ask questions of a dataset in Colab) and an invitation to suggest labs.	Ideas come from the author’s own deck. Not yet reviewed.
2026-10-07	appendix/open-labs.qmd (one paragraph)	Added NYU Langone’s Prompt-a-thon as the precedent for the open-lab format, citing Small et al. 2024 [pmid:39042600] for its survey finding (confidence rose with or without sample prompts), with the limit stated; linked the project-cards repository (no licence, so linked, not copied).	The author supplied the paper. The model checked the PMID’s metadata and abstract in PubMed; the abstract supports the sentence.
2026-10-07	appendix/open-labs.qmd (new), _quarto.yml, theme/textbook.scss	Drafted an Open labs appendix at the author’s suggestion: a catalogue of self-contained, experience-focused labs for the class to vote on, with one written in full (an ambient-scribe lab on a made-up three-speaker visit: transcribe in Word for the web, draft the note with ChatGPT Edu or Copilot, sort the errors by step), three pointing to existing enrichment chapters, and six short ideas. Links NYU’s Prompt-a-Thon site from two ideas (no licence stated, so linked, not copied). Word for the web’s Transcribe was checked against university help pages (Aalto, Bowdoin); the lab has a fallback if it is switched off. The vote link is a [VERIFY] flag.	The model rendered it and checked links and layout at desktop and phone width. The author has not yet reviewed the lab or tried the visit script.
2026-10-07	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd (new subsection 11.3.1)	Added “How a scribe turns a conversation into a note”: four steps (record, transcribe, summarize, sign) drawn in CSS, where each kind of error enters, why summarizing errors look right, and that UCHealth announced a systemwide Abridge rollout in February 2026, linked to the press release.	UCHealth’s use of Abridge was suggested by the author and confirmed by the model against the Business Wire release of 24 Feb 2026. The author has not yet reviewed the wording.
2026-10-07	course/patient-information.qmd, the BAA sentences in seven chapters (centaur-cyborg, ethics-regulation, agentic-coding, foundations, prompting-lab, environment, rag-notebooklm), CONTEXT.md	Replaced “institutional accounts are not covered unless your institution says so” with the confirmed fact: ChatGPT Edu and Copilot are covered when signed in with university credentials, not through personal accounts. Kept the course rule (made-up patients only) and changed its stated reason to “the agreement covers patient care; this is coursework”. Added a sixth self-check on personal versus university accounts.	The coverage fact comes from the author (course director), 2026-10-07. The author has not yet reviewed the edited wording.
2026-10-07	course/patient-information.qmd (new), one link line in each of the ten “No patient information” callouts, course/syllabus.qmd, _quarto.yml	Drafted a new unnumbered course page on what HIPAA protects, Safe Harbor’s identifiers, why the course rule is stricter, business associate agreements, patients versus workforce, and what to do after a slip, with five self-check questions on made-up patients. Legal statements were checked against the regulation text (45 CFR 160.103, 164.502(b), 164.514) on Cornell LII; HHS pages blocked the tool. CU Anschutz’s BAA status for ChatGPT Edu and Copilot was then confirmed by the author (row above); the reporting step names a general “patient privacy office” by the author’s choice, so the page carries over to other institutions.	The author has not yet reviewed. The CU-specific facts need the compliance or privacy office.
2026-10-07	chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd (one sentence)	Softened “pasting a real patient’s labs into the tool is a privacy violation” to “can be an unauthorized disclosure”, because lab values alone may not be identifying; added that the student is not the one who decides, with a link to the new page.	The author has not yet reviewed.
2026-10-07	theme/self-check.html (new), theme/textbook.scss, _quarto.yml	Wrote a self-check widget: ::: {.self-check} blocks in markdown become clickable questions that mark the answer and reveal an explanation. Nothing is stored or sent. Without JavaScript the block reads as plain text.	The model tested it in a browser in light and dark mode: wrong answer, right answer, and Try again.
2026-10-07	theme/textbook.scss, styles.css	Dark-mode fix after the author reported the chapter 2 templates were near invisible: plain fenced blocks rendered black text on the dark page; they now take the palette’s text colour on a tinted panel. Pinned one heading in the calculator mock-up. Presentation only.	The author found the bug on the live site. The model then checked text contrast on all 18 pages in dark mode in a browser (all at least 3.5:1).
2026-10-07	chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd (figures 9.1 and 9.4), styles.css, theme/textbook.scss	Fixed overflow found while checking the new theme: [VERIFY] flags, long URLs, inline code, wide tables and comic images on phones. Found that both Mermaid bar charts in the workforce chapter misdrew their data: Mermaid starts bars at the axis minimum, so the BLS chart showed transcriptionists’ -4% as a positive bar and the NRMP chart (axis from 900) made an 8.6% rise look about tenfold. Redrew the BLS chart in CSS from the same three numbers with a zero line; changed the NRMP chart to lines and changed “bars” to “lines” in its alt text and caption, adding “The axis starts at 900.” No numbers changed.	The model checked all 18 pages at 1456px and 400px for overflow in a browser and compared both charts with the numbers in the source. The author has not yet reviewed.
2026-10-07	theme/textbook.scss, theme/textbook-dark.scss, _quarto.yml, styles.css, two inline-styled boxes in chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd	Replaced the stock cosmo theme with a modern-textbook theme in the direction the author chose (serif reading text, sans headings, warm paper, deep teal accent, week parts as sidebar groups, marked Watch/Do/Check headings, a dark mode). Pinned the text colour of the illustrative CSS boxes so they stay legible in dark mode. Presentation only: no wording changed.	The model rendered the book and checked light mode, dark mode, and a 400px phone width in a browser. The author has not yet reviewed it; the PR is not to be merged until they have.
2026-10-04	chapters/core-foundations.qmd, _answers/core-foundations.md	Carried four corrections from the slide-deck review (PR #60) into the chapter: proxy defined as a stand-in rather than “measured”; the category question limited to supervised models; external validation defined by a different setting; the optimistic-number claim limited to the cases a model was built from. Replaced the Part A Playground setup with three linked presets (noise 50, 20% training, fixed seed) that were run in a headless browser and show step 3 with the worst test loss at about 500 epochs; the old setup (noise 0, 50% training) showed the flexible network with the lowest test loss. Added a second Part B question (five references with PMIDs) after a test showed large current models usually answer the first correctly; updated the answer key with the measured losses and the test results	Author to read Part A and Part B. The loss numbers are from one headless browser; a student’s browser may run at a different speed, which is why the chapter says to pause at about 500 epochs
2026-10-03	research/foundations-chatbot-test-2026-10-03.md, prompt B and its instructions on slide 41 of slides/core-foundations.qmd, reviews/core-foundations-slides-2026-10-03.md	Ran the deck’s two chatbot prompts once each through the APIs of GPT-5.4, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 5 and Claude Fable 5.1, with no tools and search off; graded every citation against PubMed by script (PMIDs looked up, titles compared; citations without PMIDs matched with PubMed’s citation matcher). Changed the deck to send students who get prompt A right on to prompt B, and to tell them to read the title of each PMID	Author to read the research note. One run per prompt, not the chat apps students use, and the point values were not graded; the note says so
2026-10-03	slides/core-foundations.qmd and its narration script slides/core-foundations-narration.md, the five figures from slides/make_figures.py (images/egfr-bridge.svg, model-loop.svg, sepsis-alert-external-validation.svg, lost-in-the-middle-liu-2024.svg, embeddings-illustrative.svg), one sentence in chapters/core-foundations.qmd, appendix/about.qmd	Claude Code (Claude Opus) drafted a Reveal.js deck for the foundations session from the chapter and the module plan: the speaker notes as a narration script, the browser widgets (poll, model sorter, overfitting slider, tokenizer, next-word sampler, context-window bar, HEART quiz), the TensorFlow Playground presets, and the figures. Numbers were read by tool against their sources: the Liu et al. appendix table (arXiv HTML) for the redrawn U-curve; the PubMed abstracts of Wong et al. 2021 (7% prevalence, AUC 0.63, 67% missed, 18% alerted), Inker et al. 2021, the NKF-ASN task force report, and the three HEART papers; the NoLiMa arXiv abstract; the Fleischner 2005 record. The Playground presets were run in a headless browser to confirm that step 3 has the worst test loss at about 500 epochs. The deck was reviewed by six persona agents over three rounds (reviews/core-foundations-slides-2026-10-03.md)	Author to view the deck and listen to or read the narration before it is used with students. No person has yet read the deck, run the widgets, or checked the narration against the slides. The probability table, the chat exchange, the lab panel, and the embedding figure are made up and labelled so on the slide
2026-09-08	chapters/*.qmd (ten of eleven), _answers/core-appraisal.md, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md, _answers/enrichment-agentic-coding.md, _answers/enrichment-environment.md, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md	Worked through the 45 open [VERIFY] flags in issue #52 with three research agents (literature, regulatory, media) that read primary sources where the tool could reach them: PubMed records and PMC full text, fda.gov pages and the AI-device CSV, statute text on the California and Texas legislature sites, the DailyMed label, CMS transmittals, podcast feeds and YouTube page data, phti.org and the PHTI PDF. Closed 25 flags; corrected six claims (the FDA device count, now 1,614 dated 4 Sept 2026; the CDS guidance date; the Texas laws, which are two statutes; the UCSF 5.8% figure, which is from a press release, the paper says 1.81 RVUs a week; the Emory/CHOA study, which is a small randomized trial, so claim 8 moved tiers; OpenEvidence, which does verify US medical students); added six citation keys after retrieving each record (Frutuoso Maia 2026; Neiman demand and supply projections; the NEJM AI automation-bias trial by DOI; two CAP eGFR adoption surveys) and dropped one that did not support its sentence. Twenty flags remain, each now dated and saying what a person still has to do (a paywalled or bot-blocked page, a login, a supplement)	Author to read the corrected sentences, especially the UCSF and Emory ones, and to work the remaining list in the issue. The coordinator applied the agents’ proposed edits after reading their sources’ quoted text, not the sources themselves
2026-09-08	appendix/about.qmd, index.qmd, AI-LEDGER.md	Ledger and appendices review (issue #26): added the parts restructure and the mannered-prose pass to the account of how the book was made, in the about page and the preface; earlier in the day added the standing-uses row for parallel per-chapter agents and the note on when the author read the parallel-drafted chapters. Checked that the personas appendix still includes curriculum/personas.md unchanged, that the about page points to reviews/ and the open-flag issue, and that every Human review cell states what a person did	Author to read the two new paragraphs. The claim that the author read the deployed book on 2026-09-08 rests on the author’s request for the plain-language pass after reading it
2026-09-08	chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), index.qmd, course/*.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, CLAUDE.md, curriculum/chapter-pattern.md, one Check-row label in _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md	Mannered-prose pass (issue #54), one agent per chapter plus one for the front and back matter, in parallel: inventoried metaphors, idioms, and set phrases and replaced each with the literal statement (about 400 replacements across the book; “earns its keep”, “load-bearing”, “a good commute”, “the other half”, “hand off”, “lever”, “get in the door”, “landing cold”), keeping a metaphor only where it is a chapter’s explained teaching device (the keyboard analogy, centaur and cyborg, the three-sentence spine, the context-window budget, the device line) or clinical idiom. Added the say-what-you-mean rule to CLAUDE.md and the chapter pattern. No number, citation key, [VERIFY] flag, figure or table id, image, URL, heading, or section order changed; each agent and the coordinator checked that by script. Headings and callout titles that still carry a metaphor were left and listed in the PR	Author asked for the pass and supplied the rule; author to spot-read the deployed chapters. Each agent’s report lists its ten largest rewrites and what it kept; the coordinator read the reports, not every diff line
2026-09-08	_quarto.yml, course/syllabus.qmd, course/resource-log.qmd, appendix/instructors.qmd, index.qmd, exercises/weekly-resource-log.md, two chapter links	Restructured the book into parts by week (issue #28): moved the student text and the four weekly chatbot prompts of the resource log from exercises/ into a rendered course page, wrote a short syllabus page, and moved the instructor directions, objectives, grading, delivery levels, module catalog, variants, session structure, and the guest-invitation shape (without local names) into a new instructors appendix, rewriting curriculum/schedule.md text to the plain-language standard rather than including it. Linked the two chapter Dos that count toward the log. No chapter text changed beyond those two links	Author to read the three new pages. The resource-log text is the author’s own from exercises/, edited only for em-dashes and sentence length; the due-date cells are placeholders
2026-09-08	chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), index.qmd, appendix/about.qmd, GitHub issue #52	Cross-reference pass (issue #13), one agent over the whole book: turned every plain-text chapter mention into a link (56), unified block headings and the definitions of shared terms (proxy, register, automation bias, hallucination, the 2/1/0 scale, context window), named the three throughlines the same way everywhere, resolved duplicated material by giving each topic an owning chapter and a short version plus link elsewhere, marked repeated videos and Go deeper entries, added mermaid accessibility directives to all twelve diagrams, built the competency coverage table in the preface, rewrote the preface and the about page for the process as it ran, and filed the inventory of 45 open [VERIFY] flags as issue #52	Author to read the preface and about page, and the coverage table’s note that AIM-8 is no chapter’s subject. The coordinator fixed curriculum/schedule.md’s catalog row for the ethics chapter to carry AIM-X, which its assembly text and the chapter already did
2026-09-08	chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), _answers/*.md, reviews/*-2026-09-08.md, GitHub issues #27, #29, #32, #34–#37, #40, #41, #44, #49	Six-persona review pass (issue #12), one agent per chapter in parallel after the plain-language pass: reviewed as all six personas, filed one review issue per chapter, fixed what the findings called for, left the rest as open items in the issue and review file. Substantive catches include the Tolentino 2024 figure (papers, not programs) in the patient-communication chapter and the merged Memphis turbine sites in the environment chapter; several load-bearing claims re-checked in PubMed	Author asked for the pass after reading the deployed book; author to read the open items in each review issue. PubMed rate limits blocked some re-checks; the review files say which
2026-09-08	chapters/*.qmd (all eleven), _answers/*.md where rubric wording changed	Plain-language pass, one agent per chapter in parallel: replaced or defined on first use the design-document vocabulary the author flagged (anchor, register, throughline, artifact, proxy, framing, and about two hundred others across the book), split long sentences, removed em-dashes, hedged verbs to match evidence. No number, citation key, [VERIFY] flag, figure, or section order changed; each agent checked that by script. Block headings were renamed per chapter and are harmonised in the cross-reference pass	Author said the content was good but the language was jargonish and named the examples; author to spot-read the deployed chapters
2026-09-07	chapters/core-foundations.qmd, _answers/core-foundations.md, reviews/core-foundations-2026-09-07.md, images/curve_fitting.png, additions to styles.css	Drafted the chapter from modules/core-foundations.md and issue #2; retrieved and read PubMed metadata for all 17 PMIDs cited or linked (eGFR equations, dataset shift, Epic sepsis validation, MYCIN, Watson, eight scoring-system originals) and checked the quoted numbers against the abstracts; confirmed the Liu et al. context-window paper via Crossref; confirmed the 3Blue1Brown and Karpathy videos, the xkcd licence, and playground.tensorflow.org via web fetch; drew the lab panel and chat exchange in CSS as labeled illustrations; wrote the six-persona self-review and applied its fixes	Author has not yet read the chapter. Citations were checked by tool against PubMed abstracts, not by the author reading each paper. The chat specimen and lab panel are constructed and say so. Part B’s expected model behaviour in the answer key is a prediction, not a recorded run; re-run before the cohort sees it
2026-09-07	chapters/core-centaur-cyborg.qmd, _answers/core-centaur-cyborg.md, reviews/core-centaur-cyborg-2026-09-07.md	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/core-centaur-cyborg.md and the recovered ai-safety deck notes; retrieved and read six PMIDs in PubMed and two DOIs in Crossref and inserted only those; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode (Chen, 2025-10-15) exists via the podcast site; drew the intern task list and the mis-skilled draft note in HTML, and redrew the Goh 2024 trial numbers as an inline SVG; applied the fixes recorded in the review file	Working in a parallel worktree with nine sibling chapter agents; author has not yet read the chapter. Numbers in prose were checked against retrieved abstracts by the assistant, not by the author; the Abdulnour claims rest on the module’s summary because PubMed carries no abstract for it. Three [VERIFY] flags remain in the chapter
2026-09-07	chapters/core-bias-equity.qmd, _answers/core-bias-equity.md, reviews/core-bias-equity-2026-09-07.md, images/pulse-oximeter-benin.jpg, images/occult-hypoxemia-by-race.svg, images/obermeyer-cost-vs-illness.svg	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona review from modules/core-bias-equity.md and GitHub issue #4; retrieved and read the metadata of all 20 cited PMIDs with the PubMed tool; fetched the Sjoding letter’s full text (PMC) for the occult-hypoxemia counts and drew both SVG charts by hand from published numbers; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode (date, length) and the FDA draft-guidance status on fda.gov; found and licence-checked one CC BY-SA photo on Wikimedia Commons; dropped one module figure (spirometry 22.7%/3.3%) that could not be sourced and replaced it with Diao et al. 2024	Author to read the chapter in full. Obermeyer’s 4.8 vs 3.8 chronic-condition figures come from secondary summaries of the paywalled paper, not the paper’s full text; the abstract supplies 17.7 to 46.5%. Three [VERIFY] flags left in prose, none as citations
2026-09-07	chapters/enrichment-agentic-coding.qmd, _answers/enrichment-agentic-coding.md, reviews/enrichment-agentic-coding-2026-09-07.md, images/voting_software.png, one block appended to styles.css	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-agentic-coding.md and issue #5, working as one of ten parallel chapter agents. Retrieved and read the metadata of every cited PMID in PubMed by tool (18 PMIDs) and resolved four DOIs through Crossref; confirmed the Karpathy video’s date and length from YouTube and Apple Podcasts metadata; confirmed the three Excel headlines against the outlets’ own page titles; downloaded one xkcd strip and read its licence page. Started two live runs of the chapter’s starter prompt (CHA₂DS₂-VASc, MELD-Na) in Claude with no tools; neither returned in time to be read, so the specimen callout is constructed from the known edge failures and labelled “expected behaviour, not a recorded run” in the chapter and answer key. Checked the opening scenario’s MELD-Na arithmetic in Python, which caught a first draft whose two omitted rules cancelled to the same score	Author to read the chapter in full. Citations were checked against PubMed metadata and abstracts by tool, not by the author reading each paper; the Pearce 2022 and Perry 2023 security figures rest on the model’s reading of those papers and should be spot-checked. Five [VERIFY] flags remain in the chapter (Karpathy posts and Collins WOTY; FDA CDS guidance text of January 2026; canvas enabled in the institutional workspace; Copilot student plan status; CHA₂DS₂-VASc sex-category guideline wording in the answer key)
2026-09-07	chapters/core-patient-communication.qmd, _answers/core-patient-communication.md, reviews/core-patient-communication-2026-09-07.md, images/doctor-talking-with-patient.jpg, images/ayers-2023-redrawn.svg	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/core-patient-communication.md in a parallel agent worktree; retrieved and read the PubMed metadata for all 15 cited PMIDs and pulled the Thomae and Khullar numbers from PMC full text; confirmed the NEJM AI Grand Rounds episode date and length from the podcast feed; searched for a 2024–2026 patient-facing chatbot incident and found the Winters v. OpenAI complaint (allegations, not findings); downloaded one NCI public-domain photo and drew the Ayers figure as SVG from the abstract’s numbers; wrote the illustrative chatbot printout and portal message	Author to read the chapter in full. The Part B chatbot-as-patient prompt was not run against a live model by the agent; the answer key says to run it before the session. State-law details and the Tradeoffs episode length are flagged VERIFY. The 21% figure is carried from research/competency-frameworks.md and should be confirmed against Tolentino et al.’s table
2026-09-07	chapters/enrichment-workforce-economics.qmd, _answers/enrichment-workforce-economics.md, reviews/enrichment-workforce-economics-2026-09-07.md	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-workforce-economics.md. Verified 17 PMIDs by reading their PubMed records; read the NRMP 2026 Results and Data PDF and three BLS Occupational Outlook pages directly and redrew the numbers as figures, which resolved the module’s NRMP, BLS, and UCSF-RVU [VERIFY] flags (BLS had revised to 2025–35 projections in the meantime; the chapter carries the new ones). Corrected the module’s date for Hinton’s NYT interview (May 2025, not 2026) and replaced its secondary-sourced workforce projection (20.9%) with the Neiman primary (25.7%/40.3%). Confirmed both videos’ upload dates and lengths from YouTube page metadata. Left four [VERIFY] flags where a number came only from secondary reporting (38% single-site validation, imaging-demand projection, CAD reimbursement year, the phrase “bot wars”). No images downloaded; all visuals are CSS blocks, mermaid redrawings, or text clippings	Author to read the chapter and decide on the illustrative Hinton slide (review file, open item 1). Claims resting on a specific number were checked against the PubMed abstract or the primary PDF, not the full paper. Part A’s expected chatbot behaviour is from one run on 2026-09-07 and should be re-run before each cohort
2026-09-07	chapters/enrichment-environment.qmd, _answers/enrichment-environment.md, reviews/enrichment-environment-2026-09-07.md, images/ai-per-query-figures.svg, images/data-center-cooling-tower.jpg	Drafted the chapter, answer key, and six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-environment.md and research/enrichment-activities.md section 3; verified eight PMIDs by retrieving their PubMed metadata and reading the abstracts (Eckelman 2020, Wolf 2022, Lokmic-Tomkins 2022, Doo 2024, Fiske 2025, Schmitz 2026, Selvan 2026, Alzoubi 2026) and three DOIs against Crossref (de Vries 2023, Osmanlliu 2025, Li 2025); fetched the primary web sources for every per-query figure (Li et al. arXiv v1 PDF for the 500 mL sentence, Google arXiv 2508.15734 and Cloud blog, Altman blog, Epoch AI, MIT Technology Review, Jegham et al. arXiv, Berkeley Lab, IEA, ESG Dive for Google’s 2025 and 2026 reports, The Register) and dated each; confirmed the TED talk and its podcast release and length; checked the CC0 licence on the Wikimedia Commons photo; generated the per-query SVG from the figures named on it with a stdlib script	Author asked for the chapter per issue #8 and the shared brief; author to read the chapter and confirm. The Washington Post article was paywalled to the tool, so its 519 mL and 0.14 kWh come from TechRepublic’s report of it and carry a [VERIFY]; the Memphis turbine count carries a [VERIFY]; the Lancet Digital Health item had no abstract in PubMed and is characterised from its title only. The module’s attribution of the NEJM Catalyst piece to Sherman et al. did not match Crossref (Osmanlliu et al.) and the chapter cites it by DOI without naming authors
2026-09-07	chapters/core-ethics-regulation.qmd, _answers/core-ethics-regulation.md, reviews/core-ethics-regulation-2026-09-07.md, images/jabbour-2023-explanations.svg, styles.css (appended .ehr-note), _quarto.yml	Drafted the chapter from modules/core-ethics-regulation.md and research/enrichment-activities.md §5; retrieved and read PubMed metadata for all 19 @pmid: keys used (Price 2019, Mello 2024, Tobia 2020, Tacconelli 2026, Jabbour 2023, Wu 2021, Chouffani El Fassi 2024, Taylor 2026, Anderson 2025, Lawrence 2025, Budzyń 2025, Wolfe 2026, Al-Anezi 2026, NAM AICC draft and commentary, and others); re-checked the regulatory state by web: downloaded the FDA CDS guidance PDF and found it is dated 29 January 2026 (superseding 6 January 2026), confirmed the EU Digital Omnibus deferral, HTI-5 still proposed, the August 2026 FDA generative-AI discussion paper; verified the three press headlines and the Stanford Legal episode (48 min, transcript); redrew the Jabbour figure as SVG from the paper’s numbers; drew the illustrative note in CSS; wrote the six-persona review and applied its fixes	Author has not yet read this chapter; it was written by a parallel agent under the shared chapter brief. Claims that rest on a specific number were checked against the PubMed abstract, not the full paper. The insurer statement, the Elsa hallucination reports, the FDA device count, and the EU Official Journal date are flagged [VERIFY] in the chapter or answer key. The Sharp and Sutter lawsuits are described as allegations only
2026-09-07	chapters/enrichment-prompting-lab.qmd, _answers/enrichment-prompting-lab.md, reviews/enrichment-prompting-lab-2026-09-07.md, images/goh-2024-redrawn.png, .chat-pair block in styles.css	Drafted the chapter, four fictional vignettes, the answer key, and the six-persona self-review from modules/enrichment-prompting-lab.md and the 2024 prompt-engineering deck; looked up every cited paper with the PubMed tool and read the abstract before inserting the key (13 keys in the chapter, 6 more in the answer key); confirmed the podcast episode’s date and length from the NEJM AI Grand Rounds RSS feed; redrew the Goh 2024 trial estimates in R from the abstract’s numbers; wrote the two illustrative chatbot answers by hand, labelled as composed, not transcripts	Author to read the chapter and the vignettes. Citations were checked against PubMed abstracts by tool, not by the author reading each paper; two drug-label claims in the answer key and one NEJM AI trial not yet in PubMed carry [VERIFY] flags. The chatbot answers in the opening are not real transcripts and say so
2026-09-07	chapters/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.qmd, _answers/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.md, reviews/enrichment-rag-notebooklm-2026-09-07.md, images/retrieval-hallucination-vollmer-2026.svg, additions to styles.css	Drafted the chapter from modules/enrichment-rag-notebooklm.md and the archive article; searched PubMed and read the abstracts of 12 papers cited by PMID and one by DOI (Crossref); produced the score-1 specimen by a real run of a source-grounded summarizer (the unnamed model behind Claude Code’s WebFetch tool) on the PMC full text of Vollmer et al. 2026 and checked its numbers against the paper’s Table 6; confirmed the IBM video’s date and length from the YouTube page; confirmed NotebookLM education-account access from Google’s help and admin pages; drew the bar chart by hand as SVG from the paper’s reported figures; reviewed as all six personas and applied the fixes	Author to read the chapter. NotebookLM itself was not run (no Google sign-in available to the assistant); the answer key says to run the pre-vetted set before the cohort. Tier limits are from third-party guides and flagged VERIFY. Claims resting on a specific number were checked against abstracts, not full texts, except the specimen
2026-09-07	images/, styles.css, visual additions to chapters/core-appraisal.qmd	Found and licence-checked one CC BY-SA photo (Wikimedia Commons) and two xkcd strips (CC BY-NC 2.5); verified three real headlines about the five-system scribe study via web search and built them as text clippings rather than screenshots; drew an illustrative vendor slide in CSS	Author asked for visual appeal, humour, and lay-press material; author to confirm the NC licence on xkcd is acceptable for a free public course page
2026-09-07	reviews/core-appraisal-2026-09-07.md, GitHub issue #1, revisions to chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, _answers/core-appraisal.md, styles.css	Reviewed the chapter as all six personas; verified FUTURE-AI, TRIPOD-LLM, NAM AICC, Goodman 2023, Chen 2023 in PubMed; ran the Part A prompt itself and checked its five references in PubMed for the specimen panel; drafted the three new sections and all nine action items	Author asked for the review and named the three gaps (concrete examples, information correctness, what makes a good tool); author to read the new sections. The score-1 and score-0 specimens are constructed, and say so in the chapter
2026-09-07	curriculum/personas.md, AI-LEDGER.md, appendix/ (about, personas, ledger), opening-scenario rule in chapter-pattern.md, new opening of chapters/core-appraisal.qmd	Drafted all of it from the author’s brief; proposed the ethicist persona and the four persona revisions; modeled the appendix on the author’s RBiocBook about page	Author specified the personas and the scenario requirement, reviewed the draft, asked for and approved the revisions
2026-09-06	chapters/core-appraisal.qmd, _answers/core-appraisal.md	Drafted chapter prose, figures, the Do activities, and the answer key from modules/core-appraisal.md; looked up every reference with the PubMed tool and inserted resolved keys	Author read the chapter in full. References were checked against PubMed by tool, not by the author reading each paper; claims in prose that rest on a specific number should still be spot-checked against the source
2026-09-06	curriculum/chapter-pattern.md, curriculum/delivery-modes.md, exercises/, research/comparable-courses.md	Drafted from the author’s design decisions; reviewed the HMS ExecEd program from its public page	Author directed and edited
2026-09-01	CONTEXT.md	Drafted from author-supplied facts about people, roster, and registration	Author supplied every fact; none were generated
2026-08-05	curriculum/, modules/, research/ (initial framework, modules, and research notes)	Drafted competency framework, module catalog, and research notes with web search; flagged unverified claims [VERIFY] inline	Author reviewed structure. [VERIFY] flags remain in research/ until the author checks each claim; they travel into chapters unchanged
2026-08-05	research/talks-inventory.md, recovered Drive deck contents	Read and summarized the author’s prior lecture decks	Author’s own material; summaries checked against the decks

What is not AI. The competency IDs, the four-week structure, the design constraints, the guest roster, the choice of personas, and the requirement that every chapter open with a clinical scenario are the author’s decisions. The model drafted the prose that records them.