When the technology should be in the building.
AI is starting to help with decisions about people's health, in hospitals, and in pro sports, where teams use data about players' bodies to decide who plays and when. Darwin by Medigram is the system that checks the AI: it scores every decision on six kinds of trustworthiness and keeps a permanent record, so whether the stakes are a patient's care or a player's career, nothing happens unchecked and there's always proof. Designed to work on mobile, where the work happens.
Not every technology that shows up is ready to play at the level the organization actually competes at. Darwin’s TVS screening and remediation scoring show whether a system is ready for the games that count or still belongs in development, before it ever touches a player-health decision such as return to play.
A short reader path into Building Darwin, the full CEO Letter.
Why vendor screening comes first
The CEO Letter states that Darwin screens AI vendors across all six TIPPSS dimensions and produces one of four designations with a sealed record either way. The question is not a verdict on the vendor. It is a level check: is this technology ready to play at the level this organization operates at, or does it still belong in development, and is it still doing what it was sold as doing once it is on the floor?
Why player-health decisions are different
A return-to-play or other consequential health decision may involve medical staff, performance data, devices, models, executives, agents and the athlete. Technology can inform the decision, but clinical accountability cannot become diffuse.
Preserving decision authority across many parties
A consequential player-health decision can involve team physicians, athletic trainers, performance staff, technology vendors, security, legal, executives, agents, and the athlete, and each of them typically sees only their part of it. This architecture exists to preserve clear decision authority and a durable record across those interfaces, so the decision doesn’t quietly become ambiguous where those groups meet.
Why Sherri and the Medigram team
That design comes from work done across standards, architecture, engineering, security, and evidence together, so a boundary condition found in one area (a vendor screening result, a verification finding) could change how the decision process itself is governed, not just get filed separately. The intent is for that same clarity to hold in the building, regardless of how many parties are involved in a given decision.
What the governed record protects
The record can preserve what information was available, what AI or technology contributed, who retained authority, what validation occurred and why the decision was made. This protects the athlete, physician, family and institution from after-the-fact reconstruction.
The operating standard
Use TVS/TIPPSS to qualify the technology, explicit decision authority to govern the human process, behavioral monitoring to detect change, and a contemporaneous decision record to preserve evidence.
Need the full architecture and evidence?
The CEO Letter contains the detailed technical rationale, verification loop, standards context and diligence path.