Clarify and document
Questions follow the named secure channel and the agreed clinical owner.
Phase 2 · Independent physician mandate
Independent scrutiny for consequential care.
After validation and acceptance of a new direct mandate with a appropriately licensed reviewing physician, Phase 2 may structure the agreed parts of a personal treatment question—from preparation before the first meeting and consultation review to decision gates and, where expressly agreed, time-bounded continuity.
The review foundation
Exceptional depth is the first building block.
Phase 1 is an institutional, non-individual layer built on an owner-confirmed inventory of more than 3,000 general review criteria; individual criteria remain protected and require validation plus scope-specific authorisation. Phase 1 criteria are not added to the Phase 2 count. Under a new direct mandate, the reviewing physician may activate more than 3,000 and, where the physician-approved case ledger supports it, up to 10,000 materially independent case-specific review points. The exact count is a ledger result, not a package size or forecast. This depth is the first building block of the mandate, not the whole Phase 2 service.Phase 1More than 3,000 general review criteria
→General orientation across the connected care system; no personal weighting.
Phase 2More than 3,000 and, depending on the mandate, up to 10,000 case-specific review points
→Individually activated, materially independent and physician-controlled.
Decision useMeaning for the decision
→Decision relevance · relative weight · uncertainty · implications for the decision · next step.
Version-controlled extensionExtension under version control as new evidence emerges
New information changes the protocol only through version control and approval into scope by the directly mandated physician.
Counting rule, provenance and method in the Transparency Register
From question to continuity
The complete Phase 2 service arc.
Within an accepted mandate, the applicable stages have a defined purpose, responsible physician, protected input, versioned record and operating boundary. Not every mandate includes every stage or output; medical suitability, availability and format are never presumed publicly.- 01
Scoping
The personal decision question, objectives, risk tolerance, timing, jurisdictions, existing care structure, authority and secure communication route are defined.
Scoping Summary · Data Request List - 02
Pre-meeting intelligence
Primary sources, treating structure, clinic, anaesthesia, aftercare, evidence gaps, red flags and priority questions are organised before the first meeting.
Evidence-Gap Register · Consultation Brief - 03
Individual review protocol
The directly mandated physician constructs the activated case-specific review points and documents decision relevance, relative weight, uncertainty and implications for the decision.
Individual Review Protocol · Relevance Matrix - 04
Live consultation oversight
Priority questions, statements, disagreement, unresolved conditions and required evidence are independently assessed during the agreed consultation.
Live Decision Log · Options & Dissent Map - 05
Decision gate
The evidence status, uncertainty, recommendation, conditions and Principal decision are kept separate and versioned.
Gate Memorandum - 06
Agreed treatment-stage oversight
Within the expressly agreed scope, material plan changes, new information, unexpected deviations or developments that may require a pause can be independently reviewed and the recommendation recorded.
Change-Control Record - 07
Postoperative continuity
Expected baseline, planned clinical follow-up checkpoints, secure clinical information routes, escalation responsibilities, local pathways and handover are defined at the medically appropriate level.
Postoperative Baseline · Trigger & Escalation Plan - 08
Continuity close
Open matters, residual uncertainty, owners, next review dates and the receiving care structure are reconciled before the mandate closes.
Continuity Handover · Closing Memorandum
Illustrative mandate deliverables
Versioned records within the accepted scope.
Subject to operational approval, selected records may be issued under the accepted mandate. Not every mandate includes every listed output; format, timing, recipients and updates are agreed separately. Family Office access requires documented authority, and the Principal decides at each material gate.- 01
Scoping Summary
Defines the decision question, authorised participants, scope, exclusions and secure operating route.
- 02
Individual Review Protocol
Controls the activated case-specific review points, provenance, version and responsible physician.
- 03
Relevance Matrix
Connects evidence to decision relevance, relative weight, uncertainty and implications for the decision.
- 04
Evidence-Gap Register
Separates verified evidence from missing, conflicting or unreviewed material and assigns the next action.
- 05
Consultation Brief
Prioritises the questions, conditions and source requests that matter in the next consultation.
- 06
Live Decision Log
Records material statements, disagreement, open points, recommendations and owners during the agreed meeting.
- 07
Gate Memorandum
Keeps readiness, medical recommendation and the Principal’s decision in distinct versioned fields.
- 08
Change-Control Record
Documents a material change, the new information, independent assessment, recommendation and re-review point.
- 09
Postoperative Baseline
Establishes the agreed reference state, responsible local care structure and planned clinical review points.
- 10
Trigger & Escalation Plan
Routes routine questions, urgent medical review and emergencies to the responsible level without publishing self-diagnostic thresholds.
- 11
Continuity Handover
Transfers open points, owners, channels, timing and fallback to the receiving care structure.
- 12
Closing Memorandum
Confirms completion criteria, residual uncertainty and any agreed future review date.
Synthetic illustration · no patient data
Every review point must show why it matters to the decision.
The following entries are fully synthetic. They illustrate the method and are neither medical advice nor a recommendation for a real person, physician or facility.| Review question | Evidence | Decision relevance | Relative weight | Uncertainty | Decision consequence | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Is the postoperative responsibility chain documented across locations? | Illustrative source set: partial confirmation; local handover pending. | A gap could delay the correct level of review after travel. | Material | Open | Gate remains conditional. | Confirm owner, secure channel, response route and local fallback. |
| Does the proposed facility evidence the required emergency system for the agreed plan? | Illustrative source set: facility statement received; primary verification outstanding. | The infrastructure must fit the planned intervention and anaesthetic pathway. | High | Unverified | Pause final readiness assessment. | Request the defined primary evidence and re-review. |
| Are the Principal’s priorities reflected in the current treatment plan? | Illustrative consultation note: one priority not yet reconciled. | A technically feasible plan may still fail the personal decision objective. | Material | Resolvable | Re-scope the consultation question. | Clarify objective, trade-off and acceptable boundary before the next gate. |
Live consultation and decision control
Independent advice. Treating responsibility remains clear.
Before an agreed consultation, the reviewing physician prepares the agenda and priority questions. During it, material statements, evidence references, disagreement and unresolved conditions are recorded. Afterwards, the record is reconciled, recommendations are documented and the next gate is defined. The Principal decides; professional recommendation and its boundary remain visible.
Proceed
The defined evidence and conditions support the next step within the stated validity window.
Proceed with conditions
The next step is supportable only if named conditions, owners and verification dates remain effective.
Pause
A material information, infrastructure or responsibility gap must be improved before reassessment.
Re-scope
The decision question, pathway or participating structure has changed enough to require a revised protocol.
Do not proceed
The reviewing physician recommends against the proposed step on the documented information and scope.
Postoperative continuity
Continuity reduces gaps in information and response.
The mandate may define the expected baseline, planned reviews, secure channels for images and clinical information, responsibility for local examination, escalation roles, documentation and closure. The level of review is matched to the medical question rather than a generic concierge response. No review can promise that every complication will be prevented.Escalate to the appropriate physician
The mandate defines the responsible route and maximum response window without publishing self-diagnostic thresholds.
Use local emergency care
The local emergency pathway remains primary; the mandate never replaces emergency services.
Availability is mandate-specific.
No blanket 24/7 coverage is promised. Extended coverage may be agreed only in a mandate that confirms in writing the medical scope, capacity, rota, time zones, secure channels, handover, fallback and local emergency pathways.
Responsibility and independence
Free choice depends on clear roles and separate interests.
UHNW coordinates the institutional pathway. It is neither the treating provider nor the recipient of a medical Phase 2 fee. Physician and clinic remain freely chosen by the Principal. The treating physician remains responsible for treatment.Owns the decision
Chooses the physician and clinic freely and decides at the documented gates.
Coordinates within documented authority
May coordinate timing, documents and communications only within the Principal’s express authorisation; it does not make medical judgements or replace the Principal’s consent.
Owns the independent review judgement
Acts through a new direct physician mandate, subject to licence, jurisdiction, conflict and capacity review.
Owns indication and treatment
Remains responsible for examination, consent, treatment and the treating care pathway.
Provides the institutional Phase 1 pathway
Handles validation, protected Phase 1 access and permitted non-medical coordination only; Phase 2 medical records remain in the directly mandated physician’s protected professional system.
No provider commission · no economic interest in the planned procedure · documented conflict review · the review may recommend pause or not proceeding.
Mandate readiness
Prepare the review before sharing a medical file.
Preliminary validation records only role, organisation, authority, topic, decision stage, region and a secure contact channel. No medical records are sent to UHNW. If Phase 2 is accepted, the directly mandated physician requests and stores the necessary records through that physician’s protected professional system.