Two reviewers, one file, every divergence visible. BETA
Route the same file to two or three evaluators and see exactly where their reads diverge, useful for high-value or disputed files.
The same file, read independently by each reviewer.
Each evaluator works the file without seeing the other's read, so the comparison reflects two independent clinical opinions rather than one reviewer anchored to the other's draft.
Divergence shown side by side, item by item.
Diagnosis, causation, impairment range, and treatment necessity are compared point by point, with clear flags on exactly where the two reads line up and where they don't.
Built for the files where it matters most.
High-value claims and disputed files are exactly where a second independent read is worth the cost. Consensus mode makes that comparison practical to run routinely, not just as an exception.
Disagreement surfaced, never smoothed over.
Reviewer Consensus Mode surfaces exactly where two or three independent reads of the same file diverge. It does not average the readings together and does not auto-resolve the disagreement into a single answer.
A lead reviewer, or the client commissioning the exam, resolves the divergence. The tool's job is to make the disagreement visible and specific, not to decide which reviewer was right.
From one file to a clear comparison.
Three steps, resolution stays with a person.
The same case is sent to two or three evaluators, each working the file independently.
Each evaluator's diagnosis, causation view, rating, and treatment opinion are captured on their own.
Points of agreement and disagreement are compared side by side for a lead reviewer or the client to resolve.
Built for the files worth a second opinion.
A practical way to run multi-reviewer checks routinely.
Frequently asked questions.
It routes the same file to two or three evaluators and shows exactly where their independent reads diverge, useful for high-value or disputed files.
No. It surfaces disagreement point by point; it does not average or auto-resolve it. A lead reviewer or the client resolves any divergence.
Yes, in beta. Reviewer Consensus Mode is live and testable now; we're refining it hands-on with early customers, and if your use case is a good fit we'll work with you directly.
No. Each evaluator works the file independently, and reads are only compared after both are submitted, so the comparison reflects two genuine opinions.
Two or three, depending on how the file is flagged, typically based on claim value or dispute status.
Related to Reviewer Consensus Mode.
Configures evidence checks, routing, exception queues, deadlines, and mandatory approval steps without letting AI make the final decision silently.
Read moreDrafts the examiner's IME report from exam findings and the case record, ready for the examiner's own review.
Read moreBlocks outcome valuation, settlement ranges, and advocacy-toned language from ever entering the evaluator's workspace.
Read moreSee where two reads agree, and where they don't.
Join the beta and route a file to two reviewers of your own, or book a demo to see a divergence report built live. Handled under our BAA; never used to train a model.