Current Work
Current products and systems
One product in development, four open projects supporting the field.
NextConsensus
Forecasts when medical evidence will force a guideline, FDA, or payer decision to change. Every forecast is registered before the outcome is known, so the track record is verifiable.
Open NextConsensus →What it does
Guideline committees, payers, and regulators make decisions based on evidence that shifts. They usually find out it moved after the decision is already stale.
Forecasts are frozen before the outcome is known and scored afterwards, so the record can be checked rather than retold.
What's shipped
I built the registration system, a deterministic scoring engine that freezes forecasts before the outcome is known and scores them against the public record, and the resolution rules that decide what counts as the forecast coming true.
The method and the live public ledger are both at nextconsensus.com — that ledger is the authoritative record, including how many forecasts have been filed so far.
My role
Founder
Refract
Reports what changed and when; deciding whether the change matters is the caller's job. Open-source engine (AGPL-3.0) that replays a source's revision history into deterministic, byte-reproducible change events with full provenance.
Open Source →What it does
When a source silently edits, retracts, or updates, every downstream claim built on it goes stale — and nobody notices.
Replay the source's revision history and emit every change as a deterministic event. Downstream systems decide what matters.
What's shipped
A graph-based claim-history engine, published to npm, with a daily observation bot running in production.
Source code, docs, and commit history at github.com/refract-org/refract.
What I learned
Change detection should be deterministic. If the observation layer is probabilistic, you can't trust the rest of the stack.
Any system that cites sources — citation graphs, evidence trails, compliance records — needs to know when those sources change. Refract is the observation layer for that — built before source-level provenance became a standard requirement in AI and compliance systems.
My role
Founder
Ethotechnics
Open standards for AI decision accountability — how to contest an automated decision, how to get recourse when it's wrong, and how to prove a system is safe before it ships.
Explore Ethotechnics →What it does
AI systems get deployed, then drift. Nobody owns what happens when the evidence changes, the model degrades, or a patient is harmed.
Design the questions into the product: who owns the recommendation, who can override it, what happens when it's wrong, and who corrects it when the evidence moves.
What's shipped
Six published standards covering authorization states, reconsideration loops, escalation paths, and safety cases — mapped against NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and the EU AI Act.
Full standards and operating model at ethotechnics.org.
What I learned
Institutions don't lack governance frameworks. They lack the product infrastructure to enforce them — the override paths, the correction loops, the audit trails that make accountability real instead of aspirational.
Every hospital, payer, and health system deploying AI faces the same governance gap. The standards are open so they can adopt without locking into a vendor — published while most institutions were still treating AI governance as a future problem.
My role
Author
The Crumple Zone
Essays on the gap between automated recommendations and clinical execution.
Read Essays →What it does
Automated decisions move faster than the institutions that are supposed to review them. The gap is where people get hurt.
Write about where accountability thins when institutions absorb automated decisions — and what keeps systems answerable.
What's shipped
231 essays on institutional power, automation friction, and what keeps systems answerable.
All essays at thecrumple.zone.
What I learned
When a system harms someone, the question is never 'was the algorithm wrong?' It's 'who owned the decision the algorithm fed into?'
The writing informs the product work. The concepts — cognitive scarcity, governance by attrition, asymmetric irreversibility — show up in the framework and in how I build.
My role
Author
Capability Graph
A directed graph of 118 capabilities across 8 domains — skills, agents, MCP servers, and models — with maturity scores, decay rates, and dependency edges. 17 query tools, distributed via npm and brew.
Open Source →What it does
AI capability drift and dependency decay are currently unobservable in automated agents — a gap that will widen as agent deployments scale.
Model an agent's tools, skills, and dependencies as a directed graph so you can see what's decaying before it breaks.
What's shipped
A SQLite-backed graph engine with 17 MCP query tools, a tracking plugin for config changes, a visualizer, and executable pruning — distributed via npm and brew.
The repository, live demo, and npm package are public at github.com/zz-plant/capability-graph.
What I learned
Capability rot is silent. The first sign of a decaying skill is never 'it broke' — it's 'the agent stopped using it and nobody noticed until a downstream capability failed.'
The same observation-layer pattern I've been building since Epic — alert-fatigue monitoring for clinical decision rules, source-change detection in Refract, capability-drift tracking here. You can't fix what you can't see decaying.
My role
Developer