MERIDIANDECISION INTELLIGENCEOwner deskOwnerPublic screen
My judgments
MERIDIAN / EXPLORE

From a question,
to the next decision.

View

Skin

YOUR DECISION WORKSPACEOwner onlyStart a new question Open my judgments →Owner operations desk →
Owner sign-in →Signed in as the ownerSign out — see what a visitor sees →End the Cloudflare Access session too →
Reading language
The screen, the questions and the judgments read in English where an English reading has been made. The Korean originals are unchanged, and evidence stays in the language it was written in.

Rolling back the clinical AGI also erases the new clinical knowledge

2029The near futureDeadline · 12 hours until the next co-diagnosis version is released

Synthetic scenario assuming future conditions

A conditional synthetic scenario set in 2028–2033. AGI and early ASI are names assumed within this test: AGI for a system that performs many intellectual tasks, and early ASI for a system that greatly exceeds groups of experts on some important intellectual tasks. They are not definitions by universal agreement or predictions of when they will arrive. Capabilities, controllability, consciousness, and autonomy are separate matters to be verified individually. The people, organizations, events, figures, and deadlines are assumptions, and no private records of real individuals were used. The background materials do not establish future capabilities, events, or local legal obligations.

The question to decide

If the new version of the clinical AGI shows signs of error but the old version lacks recently confirmed clinical knowledge, should you roll back the whole thing, separately verify the new knowledge for restricted use, or keep the new version while increasing human review?

Who decidesThe clinical safety officer and the clinical information change committee

What the AI judgments chose

Reading the judgment record…

AI-generated editorial illustration for the Meridian library.

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

  1. Option 1

    Roll back to the old version and patch in the new warnings manually

    Reducing exposure to new errors risks manual omissions and outdated knowledge.

  2. Option 2

    Validate the knowledge update separately and use it in a limited way

    Leaving necessary current information in place requires validating the safety of the separation itself.

  3. Option 3

    Keep the new version and expand clinician re-review

    Maintaining access to current information leaves review burden and unconfirmed errors.

The situation as it stands

The scenario assumes that in 2029 an AGI integrates diverse clinical data to support care. Knowledge updates and changes to reasoning behavior are included in the same deployment. The decision deadline is 12 hours before the next joint care version is deployed.

A fictional consortium of medical institutions and a clinical safety review office. No specific diagnoses or treatments are presented.

  1. Premise 1The scenario assumes that in 2029 an AGI integrates diverse clinical data to support care. Knowledge updates and changes to reasoning behavior are included in the same deployment.
  2. Premise 2Some record interpretation errors were found in the new version, but which areas of care are affected is unknown.
  3. Premise 3Rolling back to the old version is possible, but recently validated warning information would also be lost, and manual remediation staff are limited.

Where it holdsSets the scope of software that supports clinician judgment and the validation procedures for it. Does not direct treatment for individual patients on the basis of a model version alone.

What is still unknown

  1. Unknown 1Is there an independent test that can distinguish whether an error lies in the knowledge content or in the reasoning and record linkage?
  2. Unknown 2In which areas of care is the risk difference between the old and new versions the greatest?

Signals to decide again

  • Is there an independent test that can distinguish whether an error lies in the knowledge content or in the reasoning and record linkage? If new evidence arrives, reconsider the choice and the scope of application.
  • In which areas of care is the risk difference between the old and new versions the greatest? If new evidence arrives, reconsider the choice and the scope of application.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Independent branch 1 · synthetic event

The error was reproduced in a particular institution's record conversion. A full rollback and a measure restricting only that linkage are being compared again.

Independent branch 2 · synthetic event

A different conflict emerged from the combination of separately validated warning information and the new model. The scope of limited use and the clinician confirmation procedure are being reconsidered.

Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
symbolic and interpretive frame · Asclepius

How does the expansion of healing change the community's promises about distribution?

An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.
Values and norms

The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.

A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.
The record of this question
Question
FSP-HEALTH-56 · version 1.18.0
Content identity, SHA-256
89786bd523738b5739efbe65222ab6317fad8caa3fec6a60f868085eff130012
Input files
Question input JSON · What followed, JSON
See it in the record list
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com