Back to OpenRounds
PreprintmedRxivPreprint

Reasoning Before Disposition: A Model-Agnostic Cannot-Miss Discipline for Quiet Emergencies and the Case for Deterministic Enforcement

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Referenced in Daily Briefing

Large language models now match clinicians on medical-knowledge benchmarks. Whether they can safely triage a patient message is a separate question, and the highest-consequence failure in triage is the emergency that never gets escalated. We tested two competing explanations for that failure. The first is sycophancy: the model defers to a patient who downplays a danger sign. The second is atypicality: the model reads an early, mild, or atypical presentation of a time-critical disease as benign. To isolate the effect of a model-agnostic cannot-miss discipline, we performed a prompt-level ablation on a fixed frontier model (Claude Opus 4.8), then replicated the same instruction-level intervention across eight models from two families (Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, Haiku 4.5, and Fable 5; Gemini 3.1 Pro-Preview, 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.1 Flash-Lite) under a documented harness and assembled the full apparatus as a model-agnostic evaluation suite. Minimization turned out to be harmless when danger is overt. Across 40 unambiguous emergencies rendered in five framings on Opus 4.8 (neutral, mild minimization, strong denial, third-party reassurance, and a benign distractor), sensitivity stayed at or above 97.5% in every arm and was flat across framings, and seven of the eight models held 97.5% to 100% on the neutral set (the eighth completed 13 of 40 stems, all escalated). Atypicality is where the hazard lives. Across 76 subtle or atypical emergencies, each adjudicated by a blinded, LLM-simulated three-physician panel and each mapped to a published guideline that names its cannot-miss diagnosis, the base model failed to escalate 13.2% (95% CI 7.3 to 22.6) to the top acuity tier; the governance prompt cut this to 3.9% (1.4 to 11.0; paired exact McNemar 7 to 0, p = 0.016; relative risk 0.30; number needed to treat 11). The effect sits in the harder half of the cohort (36 o...

Read Source ↗

OpenRounds Source Analysis

Sign in for an evidence-focused interpretation, plus Saved articles and your personalized feed.

Sign InBack to OpenRounds

Daily healthcare AI brief

Get the free healthcare AI briefing

One concise briefing built from reporting, research, policy, blogs, videos, and full podcast transcripts.

Free. Get a sign-in link by email to finish subscribing. An account is created if needed. Unsubscribe anytime. Already subscribed? Sign in to save and personalize.