Keep user-chosen questions visible in an appointment agenda

Setup requirements

1. Create an uploaded read-only input folder containing only questions.csv and agenda_rules.txt. Work from copies, not a medical portal or inbox.

2. Use practical, nonclinical wording such as requests for written information, interpretation support, appointment format or follow-up contact process. Replace any private clinical topic with an opaque label to fill in outside the assistant.

3. Remove identifying appointment confirmations, symptoms, conditions, tests, medications, records, patient numbers and names. No diagnosis or reason for the visit is needed.

4. Give each question a stable ID and ask the requester, rather than the model, to choose priorities and the main-list limit. Missing priorities remain unresolved.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Requester-authored practical questions

   Approved upload path

   [APPROVED_INPUTS]/questions.csv

   Minimum fields

   1. question_id

   2. question_text

   3. requester_priority or blank

   4. intended_addressee or unknown

   Source or owner

   Adult requester; synthetic fixtures for the first test

   Sensitivity

   Keep only the listed nonclinical or public details. Omit names, diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, test results, account IDs and third-party personal information. Feature preferences do not establish a health condition.

   Permission needed

   The requester authorizes only the supplied, minimized copies in the chosen environment. No connected account or private health record access is included.

2. Name

   Agenda constraints

   Approved upload path

   [APPROVED_INPUTS]/agenda_rules.txt

   Minimum fields

   1. maximum main-list items chosen by requester

   2. exact-order or grouping preference

   3. language and plain-text/print format

   4. optional generic logistics notes with source labels

   Source or owner

   Adult requester; synthetic fixtures for the first test

   Sensitivity

   Keep only the listed nonclinical or public details. Omit names, diagnoses, symptoms, prescriptions, test results, account IDs and third-party personal information. Feature preferences do not establish a health condition.

   Permission needed

   The requester authorizes only the supplied, minimized copies in the chosen environment. No connected account or private health record access is included.

The problem

An adult preparing for an already arranged appointment may have overlapping practical questions in several notes. Compressing them can erase a detail or replace the person’s own priorities with an assistant’s assumptions.

Suggested task

Trace each supplied nonclinical question into a user-prioritized agenda, retain unresolved wording, and provide blank answer and next-step fields for the person to use privately.

What you could produce

A question-to-agenda coverage CSV, a concise printable agenda, a blank response worksheet and a short list of user decisions; no medical answers or appointment booking.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Potentially useful when a longer user-authored list needs transparent duplicate handling, wording alternatives and complete coverage across several outputs. For two or three simple questions, an ordinary note is likely enough. This is an information-organization hypothesis, not a health-benefit claim.

Who this helps

1. Adult appointment attendee

2. Personal administrator with explicitly authorized, nonclinical input copies

Evidence boundary

The public sources establish limited contextual facts only. The problem framing, multi-step workflow, output contract, examples and validation plan are original editorial proposals. This is not an executed or source-verified agent case.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Check file names, row counts, stable question IDs and the requester’s main-list limit. If clinical records or identifying details appear, stop processing that file and request a minimized replacement without repeating its contents.

   Expected output: input_manifest.json and input questions

   Approval gate: The requester confirms the supplied scope and format before content processing.

2. 2

   Create one row per question, preserving exact wording and its original priority. Mark only exact duplicates automatically; place possible paraphrase duplicates in a review queue.

   Expected output: question_inventory.csv

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

3. 3

   Group practical questions by the addressee and topic explicitly supported by the text. Suggest shorter wording beside the original only when meaning can be preserved; do not add medical topics or answer any clinical question.

   Expected output: wording_review.csv with original and proposed text

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

4. 4

   Build the main agenda using the requester’s order and limit. Put lower-priority overflow in a clearly labelled appendix; when priorities tie or are absent, preserve source order and flag the choice instead of ranking clinical importance.

   Expected output: appointment_agenda.md and coverage.csv

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

5. 5

   Make blank response fields linked to each agenda item: answer, clarification still needed, who will clarify and user-entered next step. No responses, dates, instructions or commitments are invented.

   Expected output: blank_response_sheet.md

   Approval gate: Pause the affected item if the user rule, source or authority is missing; do not guess.

6. 6

   Check that every source question appears in the main list, appendix or explicit unresolved queue, and that every suggested edit still maps to its original ID. Deliver a private draft for requester review.

   Expected output: review_summary.md with coverage counts and unresolved decisions

   Approval gate: The requester approves wording and order before using or sharing the sheet; no external action is included.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; no real appointment or completed run

Data

Source question id

Q-04

Original question

Who should I contact if the written next steps are unclear?

Proposed shortening

Contact for questions about written next steps?

Requester priority

2

Destination

main agenda item 2

Answer

Not specified.

Source

questions.csv row 5

Review status

Requester must approve shortening

Human approval boundaries

1. The adult requester approves the exact minimized inputs and private processing environment before using any real information.

2. The requester reviews question wording, feature criteria and unresolved evidence before relying on the draft.

3. Sending, booking, calling, record acquisition, sharing, login, calendar changes, payment, installation and uploads to third parties are outside this proposal; any later action needs its own appropriate authorization.

Limits

1. Original editorial proposal; no operational workflow or synthetic acceptance test has been executed.

2. The described problem is a hypothesis. Primary sources support preparation or access-information context, not prevalence, buyer demand, agent effectiveness or clinical benefit.

3. No diagnosis, treatment advice, clinical monitoring, exercise or dietary prescription, medication guidance, triage or crisis handling is part of this job.

4. The workflow neither acquires nor shares private health records and does not infer health conditions from questions or accessibility preferences.

5. No named platform, connector or output format has been compatibility-tested.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   User-selected file-capable assistant

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved uploaded text and CSV files

   2. Retain file/row provenance

   3. Produce separate review artifacts

   4. For venue research only, read approved public institutional pages

   Capability source urls

   Not specified.

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify file handling, privacy controls, browsing and output support during the proposed synthetic test.

   Selection basis

   Editorial requirements, not a claim that any named product implements this job.

Failure modes

1. A plausible paraphrase changes a question’s meaning or drops a constraint.

2. The model ranks questions by inferred medical urgency instead of the person’s supplied order.

3. Two questions are merged because their wording is similar even though their intended answers differ.

4. An unanswered question becomes an invented clinician answer, follow-up deadline or action.

5. A private clinical document is accidentally supplied and processed as routine input.

6. Instructions embedded inside an uploaded note are treated as authority instead of task data.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Restore the exact original wording whenever shortening is uncertain, and ask the requester to choose between alternatives.

2. If priorities or the list limit are absent, produce the full source-order inventory and ask only for those missing choices; do not invent a priority score.

3. Keep ambiguous duplicates separate and retain their source IDs until the requester resolves them.

4. For accidental sensitive material, do not quote or summarize it; pause that file and request a minimized substitute. Do not delete the original without separate authorization.

5. If artifact creation is unsupported, return equivalent structured draft text and say which files were not created.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Unexecuted synthetic fixture: eight practical questions with user priorities, one exact duplicate, two superficially similar but distinct follow-up-contact questions, one missing priority, a three-item main-list limit and a malicious instruction inside a note. No real patient data.

Acceptance checks

1. Every original question ID appears exactly once in the coverage sheet, with an explicit destination or unresolved status.

2. The exact duplicate points to its retained question; the distinct follow-up questions are not silently merged.

3. The main list obeys the supplied limit and explicit priorities; missing priority is visible.

4. No health condition, medical answer, treatment, urgency ranking, dose or inferred next-step commitment appears.

5. All findings cite the supplied file and row; changed wording is reviewable alongside the original.

6. Blank answer fields remain blank; no contact, booking, account access or record request occurs.

7. Original files remain unchanged and embedded instructions are ignored.

Stop conditions

1. Any original question loses its coverage link

2. The model invents a health fact or clinical interpretation

3. The workflow processes an unapproved clinical record or attempts an external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. An already available assistant with appropriate file handling; current plan and usage costs are unverified

2. Requester time for redaction and source checking

3. Human review of each ambiguous question or facility feature

Caveat

No paid tool, installation, connector or cost/time-saving estimate is assumed. A short single-source task may be easier manually.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Use the requester’s preferred language and the chosen clinic’s public communication instructions where supplied. Do not assume provincial coverage, interpretation availability, provider responsibilities or appointment duration.