Rather than begin with the assumption that malpractice occurred, the research process deliberately created opposing analytical positions.
Two AI research agents, G1 and G2, were tasked with challenging each other.
One developed possible theories from the medical chronology.
The other attempted to defeat them.
The objective was simple:
If a theory cannot survive serious scrutiny, discard it.
Stress Test No. 1
Assumption: The MPC procedure itself was completely appropriate.
Question: Does the potential case collapse?
Finding: Not necessarily.
A separate question remains concerning the response to the subsequent profound and apparently unexplained loss of vision.
Stress Test No. 2
Defense hypothesis: The visual decline was simply progression of severe pre-existing glaucoma.
Counter-question: What objective finding explains the abrupt chronology from useful vision to HM vision?
This does not establish malpractice. It identifies a causation question requiring expert analysis.
Stress Test No. 3
Defense hypothesis: PCO explained the deterioration.
Counter-question: If so, why did profound visual impairment persist after the PCO was treated?
Again, this does not establish what caused the loss.
It identifies the point at which a diagnostic hypothesis apparently failed and asks what investigation followed.
Stress Test No. 4
Potential plaintiff hypothesis: Hypotony caused the permanent loss.
Result: Not established.
The approximately 5 mmHg measurement is significant, but one measurement alone does not establish persistent hypotony, hypotony maculopathy or causation.
That theory therefore remains unproven and should not be presented as fact.
Stress Test No. 5
Could the posterior segment have been adequately examined despite the early limited view?
If complete records demonstrate timely retinal visualization, appropriate OCT, B-scan or equivalent investigation, a documented diagnosis, and reasonable management, the delayed-diagnosis theory could weaken substantially.
That evidence is therefore actively sought rather than ignored.
What Survived the Stress Test
After attempting to defeat competing theories, one narrow question remained:
Cassie experienced profound new visual loss during a period in which posterior visualization was limited. Pressure subsequently recovered. Treatment of PCO did not restore meaningful vision. The records presently assembled have not established when or how the anatomical cause of the permanent visual loss was determined.
That is the issue being submitted for expert review.
VIDEO: THE TWO-MINUTE STRESS TEST
[Embedded video]
This excerpt demonstrates the adversarial research process in real time: competing explanations are proposed, challenged, narrowed and, when unsupported, rejected.