Why we publish a dispute process
Methodologies that cannot be contested cannot improve. PT publishes its methodology so it can be examined, and we publish a dispute process so the methodology can be tested against the people it is meant to serve.
If a Pulse interpretation does not fit your situation, the most likely explanations are, in order: (1) the methodology is missing a context that matters for your case; (2) the input data was incomplete or the wrong signal was captured; or (3) the methodology has a systematic gap that affects you and others. All three are worth raising. The third is the one we are most actively looking for.
When to file a dispute
Reasonable grounds to file a dispute include:
- The Pulse interpretation contradicts a clinical finding from a physician, therapist, or other credentialed clinician.
- The Pulse interpretation appears to ignore context that you believe is materially relevant to your situation.
- A pattern signal fired repeatedly that does not match your lived experience over the same window.
- You believe the methodology contains an error or a gap that affects a population PT should be serving.
A dispute does not require certainty. If you suspect something is off, that is enough to raise it.
How to file a dispute
Send a single email to dispute@precisiontherapeutics.health.TBC Include:
- The interpretation you are disputing. Approximate date, pattern signal name, and the methodology version listed in the page footer.
- What you believe is wrong. A short description in your own words; no clinical literacy required.
- Your situation context. Anything that may be relevant: relevant clinical findings, life events, medication changes, or context the system would not have known.
- Whether you want a public response. Disputes resolved at a methodology-improving level get documented publicly (anonymized). If you prefer your case stay private, you can ask for that explicitly.
What happens next
- Acknowledgment We confirm receipt within [two business days]TBC. The acknowledgment includes a case ID and the name of the clinician who will review. This is procedural confirmation only; it does not commit to any specific resolution.
- Clinical review A clinical advisor, current reviewer: [Jordan Robinson, MD MPH; secondary review by Clinical Advisor when applicable]TBC: examines the dispute against the methodology version that produced the interpretation. Target turnaround: [14 calendar days from acknowledgment]TBC. If the dispute requires longer review (e.g., literature search or methodology re-evaluation), we will extend the timeline transparently and tell you why.
- Documented response You receive a written response that includes: (a) what we found when we examined your case; (b) whether the methodology is being changed as a result; (c) what specifically is being changed if so; (d) the new methodology version number, if a version increment is warranted. Responses are signed by the reviewing clinician and the system maintainer.
- Public methodology update (if applicable) If your dispute reveals a systematic issue affecting other users, the methodology is updated and the change is logged on the Research page. Anonymized case summaries may be included in the public update when they are illustrative; identifying details are never published. This is the part of the process that justifies the others. Methodologies that absorb feedback are the ones worth trusting.
What we cannot do through this process
The dispute process is for the methodology, not for individual clinical care. We cannot:
- Diagnose or treat any condition. Pulse is not a medical device and does not provide medical advice.
- Override a clinical recommendation from your own physician. If your dispute reflects disagreement between Pulse and your physician, we will note the divergence and continue to defer to your physician.
- Respond to urgent clinical concerns through this process. If something feels acutely wrong, call your physician or appropriate emergency services. The dispute process is for methodology, not crisis response.
What disputes have changed so far
No public methodology updates yet. This section will be populated as disputes are filed and resolved. Each entry will list: the methodology version updated, the date of the update, and a brief description of what changed and why.
The absence of historical entries here is not a feature; it reflects PT's early stage. As the user base grows and methodology gets tested, this section is expected to fill.