T10: AI-assisted authoring (must start)

[PrjShrestha]

Importance: Must start · Size: L — spike first · Depends on: T1 for the target format

Why. The design doc allocates roughly a fifth of the MVP to starting this: an optional step
that drafts a form or a clinical pathway from written guidelines and flags gaps, always producing an
ordinary editable form for human review. It runs at build time only.

Scope.

• Evaluate the existing AI tooling in this ecosystem for overlap, before building anything.
• Assess the collaborating team's clinical-pathway tooling and identify the integration seam.
• Draft-from-guidelines: a written guideline in, an ordinary editable form out, with no
  AI-specific artifacts left in it.
• Gap and consistency flagging, surfaced for a human to resolve. ⚠ Ambiguity is never resolved
  silently.
• A layered representation: a clinical-logic model above the form model, compiling down to it,
  so the two teams' tools meet at a defined boundary.
• A path that works with freely available models. The design doc names this as necessary for
  real adoption rather than a refinement.

Not in scope, emphatically. Any AI at the point of care. Runtime stays deterministic. Everything
the AI produces is a suggestion a person approves in the builder, and the builder must work with no
AI available at all.

Acceptance.

1. A written guideline produces a draft form that opens in the builder and is fully editable.
2. The builder behaves identically when AI is unavailable.
3. A documented decision on the design doc's open question: which second-phase track — the AI
   pipeline or the constrained visual editor — is invested in first.

---