Narrative Performance Lab
Narrative Performance Index™
In high-stakes clinical adoption, urgency is real — but decisions still move through governance. The NPI surfaces how your narrative posture interacts with risk containment, authority, and institutional defensibility.
Your submission shows strong clinical urgency and compelling outcomes — but the decision environment is shaped by privacy, committee authority, and downstream burden risk.
Narrative Spectrum
Perfectionist
Precision-first posture. Trust through rigor.
Engineer
Mechanics + proof. Reduces uncertainty with detail.
Historian
Precedent builder. Can widen the frame.
Caretaker
Trust builder. Can under-claim authority.
Architect
Defines ownership. Converts complexity into decisions.
Evangelist
Urgency driver. Can trigger containment reflexes.
Illusionist
Possibility creator. Must anchor proof timing.
Unicorn
Coherence + velocity. Manages exposure carefully.
NPI Interpretation — Code Blue AI
Your narrative is strongest when it is structured: the clinical problem, the “golden hour,” the mechanism of detection, and the proof (pilot performance, pathway to FDA De Novo). That’s Engineer force — it builds credibility fast.
The stall you’re experiencing is not disbelief. It’s governance friction: privacy + risk + ownership. The room is asking, “Who carries accountability if this increases burden or triggers escalation?”
Under pressure, your default is to reduce uncertainty by adding more explanation. In committee environments, that can increase perceived complexity. The move is to shorten and shift from “more detail” to bounded responsibility.
Your own insight is correct: someone needs to claim ownership. The adoption unlock is not one more slide — it’s a responsible-entry structure the committee can defend.
Systems Stakeholder Dynamics
Committee Authority
Innovation Department Chair · Innovation CommitteeAuthority is distributed. Decisions are made by alignment, not enthusiasm. Even with strong clinical pull, committees will pause without a clear owner and risk boundary.
- Primary constraint: distributed authority + decision defensibility
- Hidden fear: “who is accountable if this goes sideways?”
- What moves them: named owner + bounded entry + clear escalation rules
Privacy & Governance Gatekeeping
Legal · IRB · ComplianceThe camera + mic trigger immediate containment reflexes. Signing a retention policy helps — but governance also wants auditability, minimization, and “no surprises” pathways.
- Primary constraint: privacy + regulatory exposure
- Hidden fear: “we approved a surveillance risk”
- What moves them: data minimization + deletion proof + governance-safe protocol
Clinical Champions (Not Final Authority)
Director of Primary Stroke Centers · PhysiciansClinical leaders validate need and legitimacy — but business/innovation can override them. Their best role is to translate clinical urgency into operational guardrails the committee can adopt.
- Primary value: legitimacy + pathway credibility
- Limit: cannot bypass governance/committee decisions
- Best use: champion + co-own a responsible-entry model
4-Minute Opener — Committee-Safe Frame
Stroke is common, time-sensitive, and frequently missed — not because clinicians don’t know what to do, but because
symptoms go unnoticed in the window where intervention prevents irreversible damage.
Code Blue AI is designed to extend detection into the home using a patient’s existing devices — passive, continuous,
and focused on FAST-sign onset so patients reach the right stroke center during the “golden hour.”
We recognize the two governance concerns immediately: privacy and downstream burden.
Our approach minimizes risk by limiting retention, deleting data after detection, and operating within a defined protocol.
And we structure deployment so escalation rules are explicit — reducing false-alarm burden instead of creating it.
The goal isn’t to introduce another monitoring tool. It’s to create a defensible, bounded pathway for earlier stroke recognition
that the system can own — with clear responsibility, clear guardrails, and measurable impact.
90-Second Close
The clinical need is not in question. The decision is whether the system wants a responsible way to extend detection
into the home without introducing privacy exposure or operational overload.
The next step is not “more proof.” It’s defining ownership and a governance-safe entry:
who owns the protocol, what triggers escalation, and what success looks like in a contained deployment window.
If we can align on responsible entry, Code Blue becomes infrastructure — not an experiment.