Adoption Logic Map

Adoption Logic Map - CodeBlue.ai

You just mapped how decisions move inside this system.

What follows is a diagnostic lens — not a judgment.

Adoption Logic — At a Glance

A semantic snapshot (not a scorecard).

System Confidence

Medium — movement is possible, but not yet consolidating into a committed decision.

Rationale: Budget + activity exist, but authority and approval criteria haven’t resolved into “safe to approve.”

Primary Constraint

Risk Containment — proof thresholds are delaying commitment more than interest is delaying attention

Rationale: The system is demanding >99% accuracy at scale to make risk defensible, not to validate belief.

Active Gates

Risk • Authority — risk defines the decision logic; authority remains distributed.

Rationale: Multiple influencers (legal/compliance/payer stakeholders) are present, but no one is claiming the final “yes.”

What’s Protected

Institutional defensibility • Compliance exposure • Downstream accountability — risk defines the decision logic; authority remains distributed.

Rationale: In payer/public-sector contexts, one approval sets precedent and must be explainable under scrutiny.

Rational Moves

Name decision ownership • Translate proof into system-risk language • Reduce “pilot drag”

Rationale: Highest leverage is clarifying who decides, then making evidence legible to how this system manages risk.

Transparency

Partial — metrics are clear, but decision criteria and ownership are not.

Rationale: Evidence standards exist, yet the process for converting evidence into approval remains opaque.

System Snapshot

Candidate: Ashmita Kumar · Company: Code Blue AI

System: Government / Public Sector · Payer / Insurer / Managed Care

Path: Approval Has Stalled — interest exists; authority has not been claimed.

System Confidence: Medium — movement is possible, but contingent on translating proof into risk ownership and decision defensibility.

Active Gate(s)

Primary Active Gate: Risk Authority

When the Risk gate is active, the system is not asking “Is this good?” It is asking “What could go wrong — and who absorbs the impact if it does?”

When the Authority gate is active, Authority is present in theory, but not in motion. Agreement has not yet been claimed as a decision.

Lab’s short take: The system is using extended proof requirements as a substitute for decision ownership — not because evidence is weak, but because risk must be defensible at scale.

What the System Is Protecting

In health-focused environments, protection is often rational and reputational — not personal. When Risk is active, the system commonly protects:

  • Reputation: In health contexts, reputation is operational survival — not branding.
  • Downstream accountability: One decision can trigger second-order effects that outlast the project.
  • Decision defensibility: Leaders must be able to explain why approval was justified.

Lab’s short take: The system is optimizing for “safe to approve,” not “interesting to explore.”

What This Is (and Is Not) Asking of You

What this asks right now.

  • Clarity: so risk can be evaluated without assumptions filling the gaps.
  • Translation: so your work matches how this system defines and manages risk.
  • Patience: because decision authority has not yet been exercised.

What this is not asking right now

  • More pilots without decision framing: additional pilots without clarified ownership will extend limbo, not reduce risk.
  • More persuasion: belief already exists.
  • More validation: interest is not the constraint.
  • More building: capability is not the bottleneck.

Reminder: “I don’t know” is a valid input. Progress here is measured in clarity, not velocity.

Rational Moves Available

These are options that make sense given the terrain — not prescriptions.

  • Reframe risk in your target system’s language: describe risk the way this system recognizes and mitigates it (e.g., “fits within existing safeguards and review practices”).
  • Clarify decision ownership: identify who can say yes — not who is most enthusiastic — so movement doesn’t stall in approval limbo.
  • Pause without retreat: allow the system to resolve internal risk questions without forcing momentum that backfires later.

Facilitation fit: This is the moment to workshop one or two low-risk moves before testing them.

What Changed Because You Mapped This

  • You gained language for what the system is actually deciding.
  • You reduced misplaced blame loops (self or system) by naming decision conditions.
  • You can now choose tests with intention — instead of pushing harder by default.
  • You separated lack of belief from lack of decision cover, reducing self-blame and wasted effort.

Lab’s short take: Even without immediate movement, this map clarified what “good next” looks like.

Next Rooms (Available When Useful)

  • Stakeholders & Power: useful if authority is unclear or fragmented.
  • Value Chain: useful if your work is being evaluated in pieces rather than as a whole.
  • Workflow / Integration: useful if interest exists but momentum dissipates during pilots or reviews.