> We use in-house evals (based on existing state-of-the-art benchmarks) to compare ambient scribes.

Have you validated that your in-house evals accurately reflect real-world performance?

> If you take a deeper look into the companies on our landing page, you will see that the first list refers to the compliance standards our workflows follow and the second refers to the existing tools we integrate with.

I am talking about your use of Abridge Ambient Scribe, Nuance and Deepscribe brands in your landing page. You have numbers on the number of beds, hourly efficiency and their costs next to the actual brands. I don't see any proper attributions or disclaimers.

Also, if you were to compare actual numbers you get from the websites, these companies can use different models for different users, have enterprise discounts for different organizations and etc. How are you planning on having access to these to make a proper comparisons to see what they would actually offer to their potential customer?

Fwiw, I am a fan of the "AI marketplace" runs. This one just raises a lot of questions for me.

But, good luck!

The OP provided you one such “time bomb”: pre-existing condition. This was, 40 years ago, a totally innocuous phrase and then it became a rally cry of health insurers’ “delay,deny,defend” modus operandi.

If a large language model is taking notes for a doctor how will you defend against it slipping in phrases such as this to allow insurers to avoid their responsibilities?

Tell me how your product is designed to defend people from health insurers, or admit how your product is designed to help health insurers.