Current release evidence
Relevant workflow tests, route and permission tests, failure handling and a current dependency review for the proposed release.
Evidence / reviewed 18 October 2026
Know what the evidence actually supports.
A public summary of the supplied v23.1 design and security review. Source implementation, a successful deployment and independent assurance are different kinds of evidence.
The review baseline.
Source set: the supplied Meridian_v23.1.1_Design_Architecture_Reimea archive. Its platform and security documents identify Meridian v23.1.0 Helpdesk Plus as the reviewed runtime baseline.
Review type: documentation and source review. No live Azure environment was inspected. The supplied v23.1 verification record says targeted tests did not complete and Azure and live Graph were not tested.
What this is: a dated summary for an initial buyer discussion. It is not a certificate, independent assessment, uptime commitment or clinical approval.
Capabilities and their boundaries.
| Area | Source-reviewed evidence | Validation still needed |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | A separate Azure deployment per customer and environment is described. | Verify the deployed resource configuration, identity permissions, network paths, recovery and operator responsibilities. |
| Identity and access | Entra and runtime role checks are present in the reviewed design. | Validate route and object coverage, tenant binding, user assignment and session lifecycle. Do not infer default-deny coverage. |
| AI assistance | Registered tasks use a shared gateway; Helpdesk suggestions require separate human actions. | Review each task’s data, provider SKU and region, prompt handling and failure states. Source titles are not proof that every output claim is supported. |
| Audit | Application chains and structured log copies support review. | The review records limits around failed storage writes, deletion detection and completeness. Independent checkpoints and protected retention need verification. |
| Encryption and retention | Optional record sealing and service encryption are described. | Record sealing does not automatically cover Helpdesk/configuration, recordings, logs or backups. Retention is data-area specific; a setting is not evidence of an archive. |
| Clinical and patient modules | Synthetic demonstrators and target designs are present. | Establish intended purpose, patient identity, connector approvals, safety/security evidence and deployment-owner approval before live use. |
What a buyer can ask to see.
Deployment evidence
Identity configuration, model regions, monitored failures, key handling, backup and restore results for the actual environment.
Independent and local assurance
Relevant security and accessibility assessments, safety evidence where applicable, and the named customer deployment approval.
No completed certification or independent penetration test is asserted on this page. Evidence must match the intended use and deployed release.