CRD · read-only demonstration
See the reasoning,
not an AI verdict.
A synthetic case showing how CRD keeps evidence, working hypotheses, uncertainty and change visible without taking clinical authorship away from the practitioner.
Synthetic case only.
Nothing on this page is a real patient record. No account is required, no content is saved, and AI and voice features are disabled in this demonstration.
Sample · Maya R.
Fictional training case · CBT + attachment perspectives
Case map
How the current reasoning hangs together
Explicit source material stays separate from interpretation. Connections show the clinician’s working model, not a generated fact.
Evidence
E1 · source
Low mood and night-time rumination followed a relationship ending six weeks ago.
E2 · source
Work attendance remains intact while social plans and exercise have reduced.
E3 · source
A previous similar dip resolved without medication; sister remains a consistent support.
Working hypotheses
H1 · clinician-authored
workingRumination and withdrawal may be maintaining low mood after the ending.
Supported by E1 · E2
H2 · clinician-authored
tentativeSelf-worth may have become unusually tied to being wanted within close relationships.
Supported by E1 · E3
Reasoning boundary: evidence is recorded; hypotheses remain provisional. A contradiction should weaken or change a hypothesis rather than disappear from view.
The point
CRD does not need to know the answer first. It needs to make the clinician’s current reasoning inspectable enough to question.
Controlled early access for registered clinicians. Paid activation opens only when the live billing environment is enabled.