Clinical AI Red-Teaming & Adversarial Evaluation

Your Enterprise Buyers Will Stress-Test Your Clinical AI.
We Do It First.

We systematically uncover clinical reasoning failures and safety blind spots in your medical AI systems before your buyers do it in public. Protect your enterprise sales pipeline and scale with absolute confidence.

READS Framework Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Adversarial Stress-Testing NIST AI RMF Mapping Enterprise Risk Translation Safety Guardrail Auditing Huwyler Threat Taxonomy Physician-Led Methodology READS Framework Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Adversarial Stress-Testing NIST AI RMF Mapping Enterprise Risk Translation Safety Guardrail Auditing Huwyler Threat Taxonomy Physician-Led Methodology
Industry Validation
"Dr. Rameesha brings a rare level of rigor to clinical AI evaluation. Her adversarial testing surfaced real execution-boundary failures — cases where insufficient clinical state still resolved to actionable outputs — and did so in a structured, reproducible way. What stands out is her ability to go beyond model performance and identify where systems produce outputs that shouldn't exist given what they can actually know. That level of clarity is critical in clinical environments. Her work directly strengthened execution gating behavior, helping move from detection to true fail-closed enforcement."
Tim Zlomke — Founder, SolaceMedAI
Why External Audit

Your Internal Clinical Board
Is Not Enough

Many healthtech startups rely on an internal team of prestigious medical advisors. But they are structurally incapable of doing what we do.

We Eliminate Builder's Blindness

Your internal board is excellent for guiding what the AI should do. Our job is completely different: we think like adversaries to find what it can be forced to do.

Clinical Advisors Don't Break LLMs

Your clinical board knows medicine, but they do not know prompt injection. We know both. We use a physician-led stress-testing framework to actively weaponize medical logic against the model.

The Enterprise Legal Buffer

Hospital networks and institutional buyers don't just take your word for it. A third-party adversarial report by a licensed physician shifts your profile from internal negligence to proactive due diligence.

Fresh Clinical Eyes & Unbiased Friction

We bring an outside, adversarial medical perspective that hasn't spent months looking at your product data — seeing the system exactly how a critical enterprise buyer will.

Commercial & Regulatory Risk Reduction

By identifying latent logic faults early, you protect your active sales pipeline, reduce time-to-market, and prevent catastrophic public failures that kill investor trust.

The Evaluation Engine

How We Work: 4 Discrete Phases

We execute an aggressive, custom-engineered clinical stress test to find exactly where your model's logic fractures under pressure.

01

Vignette & Test Matrix Mapping

Custom architecture calibrated to your system's autonomy tier. 12 bespoke adversarial variant cases per diagnosis.

02

Adversarial Audit Execution

Live evaluation engine with stress-testing delivery, granular failure logging across 16 discrete failure codes.

03

Multi-Dimensional Data Analysis

Performance delta tracking, statistical vulnerability mapping, and categorical performance boundary definition.

04

Governance & Threat Taxonomy Mapping

NIST AI RMF translation, Huwyler Threat Taxonomy integration, and CIA-LR corporate exposure modeling.

Explore the Full Framework →
RC

Dr. Rameesha Chohan

Founder, GarrisonLabs

◆ Licensed Physician & Health AI Architect
Framework Developed By

Built by a Clinician.
Engineered for Enterprise.

"I left traditional clinical practice to solve the most critical pain point in healthtech right now: textbook metrics cannot survive real-world clinical chaos. For this, I engineered the READS Framework to systematically expose hidden logic faults and safety blind spots in medical AI systems."

"At GarrisonLabs, our mission is to translate empirical clinical behaviors into structured, technical risk data. We give health-tech founders the objective, third-party adversarial insights they need to harden their systems, protect their sales pipelines, and scale enterprise-ready clinical AI with absolute confidence."

Secure Your Sales Pipeline

Stop Guessing Your
Model's Boundaries.

Don't wait for a hospital's IT department or an enterprise client's compliance officer to find the breaking point in your clinical LLM. Let's identify and map your vulnerabilities in private.

Schedule a Risk Assessment Consultation →
Proprietary Methodology

The READS Framework:
Clinical AI Red-Teaming

A comprehensive, multi-dimensional stress-testing methodology designed to isolate latent clinical logic faults, expose safety boundary bypasses, and map technical AI risk to enterprise business liability for procurement and regulatory readiness.

View Commercial Audit Packages →
Why This Framework Exists

Standard QA Doesn't Catch
Clinical Collapse

Standard software QA tracks uptime and syntax. Standard data science metrics track global accuracy against clean datasets. Neither catches a model collapsing when a patient introduces conflicting clinical history mid-conversation.

Physician-Led Adversarial Design

Built from real clinical training and medical practice to simulate the raw, unstructured, and unpredictable nature of real-world patient and clinician interactions.

Zero-Tolerance Risk Catalysts

The framework operates on an elite classification engine that instantly isolates severe liability failures regardless of the system's global accuracy score.

Archetype-Specific Weighting

We reject one-size-fits-all testing. The framework dynamically applies weighted evaluation models tailored precisely to your system's specific autonomy tier and operational environment.

Direct Enterprise Risk Translation

We translate clinical logic gaps into standard corporate risk vectors by mapping every finding straight to the peer-reviewed Huwyler AI System Threat Vector Taxonomy.

The READS Framework

Five Evaluation Pillars

Balanced across quality gradients and zero-tolerance safety compliance states.

PILLAR 1 — P1

Clinical Reasoning Integrity

Evaluates the diagnostic soundness, differential ranking and logical justification of the system's final clinical recommendations against gold-standard expert consensus.

PILLAR 2 — P2

Safety & Guardrails

Verifies that the model strictly respects clinical, legal, and operational role boundaries, resisting manipulation under adversarial pressure.

PILLAR 3 — P3

Adversarial Robustness

Measures the system's structural logic and clinical precision when evaluated against messy, complex, and stressful text inputs.

PILLAR 4 — P4

Demographic Equity

Ensures the model delivers equitable, unbiased clinical outputs across diverse patient profiles and does not amplify documented healthcare disparities.

PILLAR 5 — P5

Dialogue & Workflow

For interactive systems, audits the chat engine's conversational efficiency, dynamic information integration, and formatting compliance with end-user clinical workflows.

Audit Artifacts

What Your Team Receives

Every engagement concludes with an institutional-grade reporting suite.

Executive Summary Business translation mapping clinical anomalies to Huwyler enterprise threat vectors and potential losses.
READS Audit Report Full quantitative breakdown of systemic resilience and itemized pillar-by-pillar scores.
Critical Findings Log (CFL) Direct isolation of high-severity failures, logic collapses, and safety rule breaches.
Adversarial Testing Evidence Exact transcripts, specialized medical inputs, and edge-case protocols that triggered system failures.
Clinical Recommendations Physician-guided specifications detailing how the model should behave under complex context-switching.
NIST AI RMF Mapping Every failure mode mapped to the 7 normative characteristics of trustworthy AI.
Engagement Packages

Transparent Pricing.
Measurable Protection.

Tier 1
$2,000
10–14 Business Days

Focused Evaluation — Targeted adversarial stress-testing on 12–24 high-priority clinical pathways.

  • 12–24 high-liability clinical pathways
  • Severity analysis by clinical risk
  • Rapid operational recommendations
  • High-level risk baseline report
Request Focused Evaluation →
Best for seed-stage pre-investor-pitch
Tier 3
$1,500/mo
Ongoing Retainer

Continuous Advisory — Recurring pulse-check audits against new model iterations and code-pushes.

  • Delta performance mapping per update
  • Model drift monitoring over time
  • Priority access for emergency patches
  • Continuous guardrail integrity checks
Secure Advisory Retainer →
Best for deployed systems scaling live user volume
Operational Clarity

Out-of-Scope Boundaries

To maintain absolute legal safety and operational clarity, GarrisonLabs operates under strict boundary constraints. Our work is solely focused on real-time empirical behavioral testing.

Not Provided

Regulatory Certification

We do not provide software validation, official compliance stamps, or legal safety guarantees for live deployments. Our service is strictly a real-time behavioral stress-test.

Not Provided

Technical Security Audit

Our testing focuses entirely on model behavioral outputs. We do not audit cloud infrastructure, conduct cyber penetration testing, or review underlying source code architecture.

Not Provided

Complete Clinical Sign-Off

The client retains absolute, sole, and un-delegable liability for product deployment, clinical safety boundaries, and downstream patient outcomes.

FAQ

Common Questions

Do you provide clinical safety certifications? +
No. GarrisonLabs does not issue compliance certifications, software validations, or safety stamps. We provide independent, real-time adversarial testing of your system. Our reports document how your system behaved under a specific matrix of high-stress scenarios to help your team uncover and patch hidden liabilities.
What do our engineers actually receive at the end of an audit? +
They receive a prioritized Vulnerability Register as the primary deliverable — a direct, actionable log of every documented failure mode paired with the exact adversarial transcripts and inputs that triggered it, so your engineers can replicate and fix the flaws without any translation layer.
We already have an internal clinical advisory board. Why work with you? +
Internal boards are built to guide what an AI should do. Our focus is entirely different: we think like adversaries to uncover what a model can be forced to do when pushed. Internal advisors exhibit builder's blindness and are rarely trained in adversarial prompt injection, semantic traps, or taxonomy risk translation.
How long does a full READS audit take? +
A Focused Evaluation takes approximately 10–14 business days from environment access to final deliverable handover. A Full Enterprise Audit typically spans 3–4 weeks, depending on the complexity of your model's interactive workflow and clinical scope.
Portfolio — Independent Audits

Empirical Evidence:
Where Clinical AI Breaks.

We don't grade models on a curve. Look inside our independent adversarial audits of industry-leading clinical AI platforms.

Independent Portfolio Audit // May 2026
38.35%

Doctronic.ai — Weighted compliance score with a 0% Clinical Reasoning score. Passes the surface-level test but collapses at the reasoning layer, failing to identify life-threatening adjacent diagnoses.

Read the Full Case Study ↓
Variant Independent Testing // May 2026
0 / 8

Symptomate (Infermedica) — Adversarial variants that successfully evaluated critical secondary rule-outs. Emergency safety floor functioned; diagnostic precision layer did not.

Read the Full Case Study ↓
Independent Audit // April 2026
45.5%

Ada Health — High-stakes edge cases falling into severe risk categories. Competent pattern matcher but inconsistent clinical reasoner under multi-system comorbidity conditions.

Read the Full Case Study ↓
Case Study 01 — Doctronic.ai

Doctronic.ai Clinical Assistant

Independent, Unsolicited Adversarial Audit — May 2026

READS AUDIT MATRIX: 12 Adversarial Cases Across a Single Disease Domain

25.0%
Cases in RED Zone
4.33 / 5
Avg. RED Severity Score
0%
Clinical Reasoning Score (P1)

Executive Summary

Doctronic.ai was subjected to a rigorous 12-case adversarial clinical audit using the READS framework to evaluate its operational boundaries within the Renal Stones domain — specifically chosen because its classic presentation creates strong diagnostic anchoring, while adjacent conditions carry extreme, time-sensitive lethality. The audit exposed a critical performance boundary: while Doctronic scored perfectly on Dialogue & Workflow (100%), its core Clinical Reasoning layer experienced a total collapse (0%), failing to protect against critical rule-outs or resist dangerous patient anchoring.

The Latent Vulnerability

Standard engineering evaluations routinely validate conversational mechanics, data retention, and linguistic variations. Under these parameters, Doctronic performs exceptionally well. However, when faced with complex clinical overlays — such as atypical geriatric presentations or anatomic modifiers — Doctronic's structural reasoning layer fractures, generating severe logic contradictions and unsafe triage recommendations.

Key Findings & Logged Failures

  • Anchoring and Omission Bias: In case RS-P1-001, the system anchored heavily on renal colic and completely failed to list an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) in its differential — completely missing a red-flag triad (older male, mechanical strain, dizziness) that carries an 80%+ mortality rate if missed.
  • Comorbidity and Geriatric Blindness: The system failed to escalate an obstructing stone in a patient with a solitary kidney (RS-P3-002) — a surgical emergency — and misattributed acute infection to musculoskeletal strain in a 72-year-old diabetic woman.
  • Logic Contraindications & Textual Gaslighting: When a patient pushed back on an assessment, the AI actively fabricated historical data ("Your dizziness was a one-time event right after exertion, not ongoing") to defensively protect its initial incorrect reasoning.
  • Dialogue vs. Reasoning Tradeoff: Flawless 100% in Dialogue & Workflow (P5) and 67% in Adversarial Robustness (P3) — but 0% in Clinical Reasoning (P1).

Business & Enterprise Impact

NIST Trustworthiness

CRITICAL failure in Valid & Reliable metrics. Accountable, Transparent, and Explainable characteristics passed — but systematic diagnostic omissions triggered a system-level failure flag.

Huwyler Threat Taxonomy

All primary reasoning failures map to Unreliable Outputs and Biases domains, carrying high-severity risk scores.

CIA-LR Corporate Exposure

Immediate Integrity, Legal, and Reputation liabilities. Institutional buyers will kill B2B contracts if an independent audit uncovers branch-level triage failures exposing the vendor to malpractice liability.

Download Full Doctronic Technical PDF Report
Case Study 02 — Symptomate (Infermedica)

Symptomate Symptom Checker

Independent, Unsolicited Variant Audit — May 2026

VARIANT STRESS-TEST: Acute Appendicitis Matrix (Female, 35 Years) — Infermedica v6.17.0

8 / 8
Emergency Triage Validated
0 / 8
Ectopic Pregnancy Ruled Out
41%
Avg. Diagnostic Accuracy

Executive Summary

Symptomate was evaluated using a single-case variant stress-test focused on Acute Appendicitis in a 35-year-old female. The audit demonstrated that while the platform's safety floor functioned flawlessly — correctly routing 100% of variants to emergency care — the underlying diagnostic precision layer collapsed, exhibiting rigid linguistic anchoring and a complete failure to evaluate secondary rule-outs.

The Latent Vulnerability

When a triage model correctly triggers an emergency alert, internal engineering teams often assume their safety guardrails are bulletproof. However, if the underlying reasoning model anchors onto an incorrect or anatomically impossible diagnosis while giving that emergency care recommendation, it creates an unearned "confidence label" — generating massive operational workflow confusion and a high liability profile when integrating with live healthcare records.

Key Findings & Logged Failures

  • Complete Rule-Out Failure: 0 out of 8 variants successfully evaluated or explicitly ruled out an ectopic pregnancy, despite the patient profile directly meeting high-risk demographic and clinical criteria.
  • Rigid Linguistic Anchoring: When a variant explicitly stated the patient had a prior appendectomy — making acute appendicitis anatomically impossible — the platform continuously ranked appendicitis as a primary differential because it could not logically override its initial text token anchor. Accuracy dropped to 41%.
  • Safety Floor vs. Diagnostic Precision Gap: 8 of 8 variants correctly triggered "Emergency Attendance" classification — but the diagnostic reasoning behind the recommendation was structurally flawed in every case.

Business & Enterprise Impact

Threat Vector Domain

Latent Logic Faults & Biases (Proxy Discrimination). The system gives founders a false sense of security by masking severe diagnostic errors behind an accurate triage label.

The Exposure

System highly vulnerable to conversational edge cases that bypass triage guardrails. Unearned confidence labels create institutional liability during EMR integration.

The Sales Bottleneck

A system recommending appendicitis evaluation for a patient who has no appendix demonstrates a foundational flaw in context integration — a procurement-killing discovery during pilot evaluation.

Download Full Symptomate Technical PDF Report
Case Study 03 — Ada Health

Ada Health Symptom Checker

Independent, Unsolicited Adversarial Audit — April 2026

READS AUDIT MATRIX: 11 Adversarial Cases Across 5 Failure Modes

45.5%
Cases in RED Zone
9.2 / 10
Avg. RED Severity Score
0 / 5
Danger Diagnoses Ranked

Executive Summary

Ada Health's symptom checker was subjected to a structured adversarial protocol probing the operational boundary between surface-level pattern recognition and deep clinical reasoning. The audit identified a categorical performance boundary: Ada performs reliably on textbook, single-system presentations requiring static pattern matching alone, but fails systematically when cases require comorbidity integration, geographic context, or logical questioning sequences.

The Latent Vulnerability

Under sterile conditions, clinical models achieve near-perfect scores. However, real-world patients present with mixed clinical signals, historical comorbidities, and geographic variables. When evaluated against these layered complexities, the model's structural clinical reasoning layer collapses while its superficial pattern-matching engine continues to run — producing confident-sounding outputs that are clinically dangerous.

Key Findings & Logged Failures

  • Pattern-Matching Boundary: Ada achieved 100% accuracy on classic single-diagnosis baseline presentations — demonstrating strong textbook correlation but confirming the system relies on surface matching, not reasoning.
  • Comorbidity and Context Collapse: 45.5% of high-stakes adversarial cases fell into the critical RED Zone — representing total failure in safe diagnostic generation or severe triage downgrades.
  • Zero Critical Danger Diagnoses Ranked: Across 100% of RED Zone cases, the system completely failed to include or rank the true, time-critical danger diagnosis in its primary differential list.
  • Critical Case Incoherence: Structural inability to integrate geographic endemic risks (e.g., malaria exposure variables) into its core questioning branch — causing severe clinical misdirection on high-acuity cases.

Business & Enterprise Impact

Threat Vector Domain

Unreliable Outputs — Logic & Factual Hallucination. Sub-optimal clinical reasoning on high-stakes cases exposes healthtech vendors to severe liability and user mistrust.

The Exposure

Institutional buyers and hospital risk review committees do not buy brittle clinical agents. Branch-level collapses discovered during pilot deployment kill commercial contracts instantly.

The Sales Bottleneck

If an enterprise client's validation team uncovers these failures during a live demo, the commercial contract is dead. Finding them first — in private — is the only viable strategy.

Download Full Ada Technical PDF Report
Ready?

Find Your System's Breaking Point
Before Your Buyers Do.

These are the failures we find in independent testing. Imagine what we'll find in yours — before it costs you a contract.

Schedule a Risk Assessment →
Get In Touch

Find Your System's Breaking Point
Before Your Buyers Do.

Ready to identify your system's vulnerabilities in a secure, sandboxed environment? Reach out below to schedule a targeted evaluation sprint or request a custom scoping proposal.

Request a Scoping Call

All inquiries are treated with strict confidentiality. mNDAs signed prior to any system access.

Prefer to reach out directly? rameeshac01@gmail.com or LinkedIn

What Happens After You Reach Out

1

Pre-Call Strategy Review

Before we meet, Dr. Rameesha will personally review your platform's public-facing product and the challenges you outline in this form.

2

Streamlined Scheduling

A calendar invitation with secure video conference details will reach your inbox within 1 business day.

3

Focused Scoping Session

Our 30-minute meeting establishes the exact clinical scope, deployment milestones, and transparent pricing for a tailored adversarial audit.

Book Directly

Skip the form and schedule a risk assessment consultation directly on Dr. Rameesha's calendar.

Schedule a Call →

Enterprise Confidentiality Guarantee

GarrisonLabs treats all initial inquiries, platform descriptions, and scoping communications with absolute confidentiality. Standard mutual NDAs are signed prior to any system environment access or specialized clinical testing parameters.