Current Work

Current products and systems

One product in development, four open projects supporting the field.

Product in active development

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

Problem

Guideline committees, payers, and regulators make decisions based on evidence that shifts. They usually find out it moved after the decision is already stale.

Approach

Forecasts are frozen before the outcome is known and scored afterwards, so the record can be checked rather than retold.

What's shipped

Built

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.

Where to see it

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

Personal Role

Founder

S V
Open-source product

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

Problem

When a source silently edits, retracts, or updates, every downstream claim built on it goes stale — and nobody notices.

Approach

Replay the source's revision history and emit every change as a deterministic event. Downstream systems decide what matters.

What's shipped

Built

A graph-based claim-history engine, published to npm, with a daily observation bot running in production.

Where to see it

Source code, docs, and commit history at github.com/refract-org/refract.

What I learned

Learned

Change detection should be deterministic. If the observation layer is probabilistic, you can't trust the rest of the stack.

Why it matters

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

Personal Role

Founder

Published standards

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

Problem

AI systems get deployed, then drift. Nobody owns what happens when the evidence changes, the model degrades, or a patient is harmed.

Approach

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

Built

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.

Where to see it

Full standards and operating model at ethotechnics.org.

What I learned

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.

Why it matters

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

Personal Role

Author

Essays

The Crumple Zone

Essays on the gap between automated recommendations and clinical execution.

Read Essays →

What it does

Problem

Automated decisions move faster than the institutions that are supposed to review them. The gap is where people get hurt.

Approach

Write about where accountability thins when institutions absorb automated decisions — and what keeps systems answerable.

What's shipped

Built

231 essays on institutional power, automation friction, and what keeps systems answerable.

Where to see it

All essays at thecrumple.zone.

What I learned

Learned

When a system harms someone, the question is never 'was the algorithm wrong?' It's 'who owned the decision the algorithm fed into?'

Why it matters

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

Personal Role

Author

Working prototype

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

Problem

AI capability drift and dependency decay are currently unobservable in automated agents — a gap that will widen as agent deployments scale.

Approach

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

Built

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.

Where to see it

The repository, live demo, and npm package are public at github.com/zz-plant/capability-graph.

What I learned

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.'

Why it matters

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

Personal Role

Developer