Clinician design partners / Proposed cohort
Help shape what
a clinician
sees next.
Bring a practitioner’s eye to the product information—not a patient to a study.
We propose a small design-review cohort to challenge how Fasolati presents observations, uncertainty and product evidence. The aim is better usability, not clinical validation.
Interest only. Participation, timing and product access are not promised.
01 / The practitioner’s perspective
Can the interface
earn the right
to be understood?
We are interested in perspectives from general dentistry, periodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery and dental hygiene, with room for a primary-care or dental informatics perspective.
These are proposed roles, not a list of recruited reviewers or endorsements.
- 01
What does the reader believe?
Can a clinician distinguish a measured observation, an interpretation, a hypothesis and a claim not yet supported?
- 02
What is missing at the decision point?
Can the reader find the source, date, method and limitations—and recognize when the information is insufficient?
- 03
Which change matters first?
What would make the dossier or fictional Life Board walkthrough clearer without implying a treatment recommendation?
02 / Thirty minutes, with a purpose
Read. Question.
Tell us where it breaks.
The proposed session uses only supplied fictional cases and public product-information pages. You would review communication and product usability, not use a rinse, assess a real patient or evaluate clinical outcomes.
- 00–04minutes
Set the boundary
Confirm the design-only scope, fictional material and no-patient-data rule.
- 04–09minutes
Read without coaching
Explain what the product information and prototype appear to say—and what they do not.
- 09–18minutes
Walk through a fictional case
Find the observation, its source, the uncertainty and the point at which a conclusion is not justified.
- 18–25minutes
Challenge the information
Review the Loria dossier. Identify missing label fields and any wording that could overstate the evidence.
- 25–30minutes
Prioritize the change
Choose the most important usability fix and explain why it matters.
A concise overview
Clinician review brief
The purpose, scope and proposed agenda in one downloadable note.
03 / The boundary is part of the design
Feedback, not validation.
A useful critique can improve a screen or a sentence. It does not establish product safety, efficacy, diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility.
No patients or patient data. No specimens, medical records, laboratory results, case histories or screenshots from clinical systems. Use only the supplied fictional materials.
Is this a clinical study or a product trial?
No. The proposed activity is a design and product-usability review. It does not include patient recruitment, diagnosis, treatment, product administration, outcome measurement or clinical validation. Any future clinical work would require its own protocol, governance and appropriate review.
Does expressing interest reserve participation or access?
No. An inquiry only indicates interest. The proposed 5–8-person cohort is a planning target, not a live enrollment count. Selection, dates, any terms and any access would require a separate agreement. There is no promise of payment, samples, software access or continuing membership.
What feedback would be captured?
The proposed approach is moderator notes about navigation, interpretation and requested improvements. No audio or video recording is planned. Scope, permission for notes, retention and withdrawal arrangements would be confirmed before a session. Do not submit patient information through the interest form.
Would a clinician’s name or feedback become an endorsement?
Not through this review. The proposed cohort is not an advisory board or a clinical endorsement program. Names, practice logos and quotations are not approved for marketing use by expressing interest or participating in a design conversation.
What can I read before expressing interest?
Review the Loria product dossier, explore the guided fictional Life Board, or read the Life Board claim boundary. No account or submission is needed to read these pages.
04 / An interest conversation first
A considered next step.
Not an automatic enrollment.
- 01
Tell us your perspective
Use the existing inquiry form. Share your professional role and the information-design question you would most like to examine.
- 02
Confirm fit and boundaries
Any follow-up would clarify the scope, proposed timing and note-taking arrangements before an invitation is agreed.
- 03
Review only if agreed
A session would proceed only after the materials, permissions and scope are ready. The cohort remains a proposal.
Your perspective, without patient data
Make the next
version clearer.
Express interest in a design conversation. Please keep your message to your professional perspective—not personal medical advice or a real patient case.