chart/danielle for medical records
Chart.

The chart, read against the rule.

The Danielle Harness applied to medical records. Ingest the full chart — handwritten physician and nurse notes, scanned and faxed pages, EHR exports, imaging, op reports, hundreds of pages across dozens of providers — and emit the artifact your team actually ships: a cited timeline, a necessity decision, a CRF, an appeal packet. Chart reads the messy ones too. Every span tied to a page in the chart, every conclusion tied to a rule in your playbook.

handwritten + scannedmedical-legalclaims · URprior authHIPAA-awarev2.0
Reads the records nobody else will
input·handwritten
Physician & nurse notes

Handwritten progress notes, order sheets, bedside charts. OCR’d and transcribed; low-confidence spans flagged for review, never silently guessed.

input·scanned / faxed
Scanned & faxed pages

Skewed scans, fax headers, stamps, multi-generation copies. Read page by page, with the page image kept beside every cited span.

input·multi-provider
Hundreds of pages

Mixed EHR exports, PDFs, and images from dozens of providers. Normalized into one indexed record — and still cited back to the exact source page.

Become a design partnerRead the harness brief →
01/workflows on the harness

Four workflows. One chart.

Healthcare ingestion is the hard part — the chart is fragmented across portals, scanned PDFs, and faxes. The Harness normalizes it once and runs every downstream workflow against the same indexed record.

workflow·litigation
Medical-legal chart review

Personal injury, med-mal, workers' comp. Ingest the full chart — ER, imaging, op reports, progress notes — and emit a timeline, causation map, and damages-relevant excerpts cited to the page.

workflow·payer
Claims & utilization review

Health plans and TPAs. Read the chart against medical necessity criteria (MCG, InterQual, plan-specific) and emit a decision packet with the cited evidence and the gap analysis.

workflow·payer
Prior authorization

Read provider submissions and the supporting chart against your auth criteria. Emit an approve/deny recommendation with the cited clinical evidence and the precise criterion satisfied or missed.

workflow·life sciences
Chart abstraction for trials

Sponsor and CRO chart abstraction. Read the chart against the protocol's data dictionary and emit case report form drafts with the source-data verification trail already attached.

02/the signature gesture

Every span tied to a page in the chart.

The output is a diff against the criterion, not a clinical narrative. Every event, every necessity finding, every appeal argument cites a page in the chart. The denial sits beside the evidence that contradicts it. Danielle never paraphrases or re-renders the record — every conclusion cites the exact source page, and for scanned or handwritten pages the original page image is kept beside the citation.

no paraphrase · exact-page citepage image kept · scanned + handwritten
UM-2026-CCU-4429183 / abstract.trace+7 add 1 flag −1 gap
01
01
> patient MRN 4429183 · DOB 1972-03-14 · admit 2026-04-12 04:30
02
02
> encounter ED visit · CC: chest pain · disposition: CCU admit
03
03
> claim DRG 280 (AMI w/ MCC) · denied 2026-05-02 · payer: BCBS
04
04
05
05
> criterion InterQual · Cardiovascular · AMI admission
·
06
+
+ event.cardiac troponin I 8.4 ng/mL · cite chart/ED-labs.pdf:p2
·
07
+
+ event.note.hw handwritten ED note "onset 03:10, crushing" · OCR transcribed · cite chart/ED-note-04-12.scan:p1
·
08
+
+ ↳ low-conf "03:10" flagged for review (0.71) · page image attached
·
09
+
+ event.imaging ECG ST-elevation V2-V4 · cite chart/ECG-04-12.pdf:p1
·
10
+
+ event.med tPA administered 04:58 · cite chart/MAR-04-12.pdf:p7
·
11
+
+ necessity InterQual CV.AMI · ALL CRITERIA MET · cite p2,p1,p7
06
12
07
13
> denial.review BCBS denial letter ref BCBS-2026-118432
08
·
- denial.basis "not medically necessary" · NO CRITERION CITED in letter
·
14
+
+ appeal.packet cited timeline + InterQual mapping · 14-day window · routed UR
ruleInterQual CV.AMI · 3 criteria mapped · 0 unsupported claims
sourcechart/* (9 documents · 2 handwritten, 4 scanned) · indexed once · cited to the page
review1 low-confidence finding flagged · 0 silent guesses · page image kept beside every cite
audittrace.v2 · 2026-05-28T08:14Z · matter UM-2026-CCU-4429183
03/who runs this

Built for UR directors, med-mal counsel, and CROs.

role·payer
UR / UM directors at health plans

Read the chart against medical necessity criteria at portfolio scale, with the citation trail every appeal will demand.

role·firm
Plaintiff and defense med-mal counsel

Chart review that emits a cited timeline and a causation map fast enough to actually use in expert prep.

role·sponsor
Clinical research operations

Abstraction against the protocol's data dictionary with source-data verification built into the artifact, not bolted on after.

role·provider
Revenue integrity & coding leads

Read the chart against payer policy and coding guidelines before the claim goes out the door — not after the denial comes back.

04/why the harness

Same six stages. Different vocabulary.

Chart is the Harness with a medical playbook loaded into it. The index normalizes encounters and visits. The playbook is your necessity criteria, your protocol, or your litigation theory. The verifier checks every emitted conclusion against the source page in the chart. Nothing reaches clinical or legal review unverified.

6 stages
every run, every product
100%
cited to a chart page
0
free-text conclusions

Become a design partner.

Pick a workflow to put Chart on — a claims queue, a med-mal docket, a protocol cohort. We calibrate the playbook against your work and run it for 30 days.

team@danielle.legal