#OpGlassLedger: 1.2 Million Solvitas Case Files
Today we are publishing a redacted evidentiary index covering 1,204,611 case records from hospital claim workflows using Solvitas decision services.
The public story was simple: automated recommendations reduced clerical burden while preserving a meaningful appeal path. The internal routing tells a different story. Initial rejection language was generated by Solvitas AI. Appeals were accepted into a separate queue, presented to patients and staff as review, and adjudicated by another AI layer operating against substantially the same policy constraints.
Human staff appeared in the process. They handled exceptions, escalations and liability-sensitive cases. They were not the appeal system most patients thought they were reaching.
What we released
The public package contains redacted decision metadata, routing records, contract excerpts and appeal-path diagrams. It does not contain patient charts, direct identifiers or gratuitous medical detail. If your idea of transparency requires publishing somebody's diagnosis, you are doing transparency wrong.
An appeal from one machine to another machine is not due process because the second machine has a different queue name.
Solvitas can argue that its tools complied with contract language. Hospitals can argue that the tools were advisory. Regulators can argue that disclosures existed somewhere in the consent stack. All of them may be technically correct. That is the problem.