Claim & source review
Check whether a published claim matches its cited source, date, population, scope, and level of certainty. Flag anything broader than the evidence supports.
We show uncertainty, disagreement, and review status openly. Small contributions are welcome from people who know the evidence, the setting, or the lived experience.
How review works
A reviewer can validate, correct, narrow, challenge, or leave a claim unresolved. Reviewer credit applies only to the specific item reviewed; broader endorsements are separately stated.
Check whether a published claim matches its cited source, date, population, scope, and level of certainty. Flag anything broader than the evidence supports.
Check that prompts are balanced, clinically sensible, understandable, and kept in scope. Review is about safety and fidelity, not individual treatment recommendations.
Test clarity, burden, navigation, missing perspectives, and whether the tools help people prepare for real conversations. No personal health details are required to participate.
Review optional context only where you have relevant expertise. Tradition or identity should never be used as a proxy for an individual person's preferences.
Who can contribute
Low-friction participation
Reviewers may be credited by name and role only with permission. See the reviewer log.
Tell us what you want to review, correct, test, or ask about. Sending a note commits neither side to anything. Do not include health information or other sensitive personal details.