We read everything you sent. The market position, the process flow, the framework logic explainer. Three documents that already do the hardest part of the work — the synthesis exists, the evidence is real, and the worked example holds up under inspection. What's missing is the shape Jordan and her care team will actually meet. This page is our opinion on that shape, and an invitation to build it with you.
These three documents are the foundation. They're rigorous, they're internally consistent, and they answer different audiences. We've rendered them here so the rest of this page can build on them, not restate them. Click any card to open it inline.
"A cross-condition health synthesis engine." The category-defining doc. Three pillars, the landscape map, the Phase 1 entry points, the operator note. This is the wedge.
Open inline → 02 — for builders + reviewersFour interactive sections: the framework, the document flow, the evidence tiers, the partnership ecosystem. The "how does it actually work" answer for skeptics.
Open inline → 03 — for clinical + technicalFive stages, the Jordan worked example, the driver maps for MDD + Hashimoto's + fibromyalgia. Reads in 15 minutes. The doc that proves the engine is real.
Open inline →Read with a designer's eye, not a clinician's. These observations shape what we'd build first and why we'd build it that way.
Twelve sections, three layers, 28–35 minutes. Jordan is doing real synthesis work just by completing it. The intake itself needs to feel like care, not a form. Health-literacy calibration, recovery saves, breath room between sections — that's design, not copy. We'd treat the intake as the first surface that earns trust.
The framework stays in the background; the lead drivers come forward. Jordan's version reads differently from Maya's because their physiology is different — not because we changed a template variable. Progressive disclosure is the whole design problem here. Get this right and the document survives being printed, forwarded, and screenshotted into a group chat.
Wellframe, Twill, Welldoc — every patient-self-management tool has died on the same hill: clinicians don't read the patient-facing thing. The Clinical Edition has to land in under sixty seconds. A psychiatrist reading Jordan's profile should see the inflammation/CEP story without reading the educator's preamble. Drillable detail, library links, one screen.
Every output gets a certified educator's pass before it ships. That's the moat and the throughput bottleneck. We'd design the review surface as a first-class screen: a side-by-side where you can adjust depth, swap framing, accept/reject driver weight, leave a footnote — without ever leaving the document. Faster editorial = more Stories per week = the business works.
A small live sketch using Jordan's intake data. Toggle the symptom items on the left; watch the driver profile recompute; read the lead-driver call that would anchor her Health Story. This is the engine you described, with an interface around it.
Toggle symptom items on the left to see the synthesis form. Try unchecking everything to see how the story disappears — the engine doesn't fabricate.
A live walkthrough of the design direction we'd build first. Click the suggested replies on the bottom — Lena (the educator) responds, the synthesis appears, the Action Plan forms, and the Care Team Companion ships at the end. This isn't a video. The state on the right updates as you go.
We explored three end-to-end design directions on the canvas. Each one carries the full happy path: intake, Health Story, Action Plan, Care Team Companion. The card we've called out is the one we'd build first — and why.
Long-form reading rhythm. Drop caps. Pull-quotes. The Health Story reads like a thoughtful letter you sit down with. Credibility from the writing itself.
See the four screens → Our pick Direction 02 — recommendedThe Health Story unspools as a thread Jordan can return to and keep asking. Highest match for your operator model — editorial review is already a conversation; this surface mirrors it. Best for engagement at 30/60 days.
Play it through above ↑ Direction 03One persistent visualization at the center. Five drivers, conditions threaded through, levers projecting outward. Navigation by zoom. Best for the Care Team Companion at a glance.
See the four screens →Why we'd start with the conversation. It's the direction that scales editorial review (every accepted message is a draft of the Story), gives the Care Team Companion a natural transcript to drill into, and produces the lowest cognitive load on first contact. The other two stay on the table — Direction 01 becomes the downloadable artifact, Direction 03 becomes the Clinical Edition's at-a-glance view. They're not competing — they're a system.
A concrete proposal. Two weeks, two people from BFD, working directly with you and one to two of the feedback testers. End state: a clickable prototype that produces a real Health Story for a real intake, with editorial review built in.