Review the proposition, not just the image
A visually plausible scene can still encode an unsupported relationship. Review should address the exact anatomy, procedure, mechanism, timing, or limitation being represented.
For medical experts
Expert review should be specific, scoped, and traceable.
A medical expert reviewing a demonstrative should be able to see which source, finding, assumption, and visual proposition requires a decision. Approval should be limited to the reviewer’s actual expertise and should not imply legal admissibility, artistic approval, or endorsement of unrelated claims.
State uncertainty precisely
If a point is unknown, disputed, representative, or outside the reviewer’s scope, the record should say so. A request for more information is a valid review outcome.
Revisions should preserve history
When new evidence or a changed opinion affects the visual, the prior decision should remain attributable and the revised output should point to the new basis.
Do not send PHI or confidential Matter material through a public page. Real PHI intake is disabled.