HEALTH BRIDGE UGANDA · PRESENTER REHEARSAL PACK
Prepared for Dr. Ibrahim and a technical demonstrator · 15-minute core, 12–15-minute delivery. Synthetic demonstration only; no login, real enrollment, patient information, payments or external messages. Roles below are browser simulations, not authenticated permissions.

PREPARATION
1. Before guests arrive: download this pack, the discovery and decision/next-step sheets, and the one-page pilot decision PDF from /presenter-pack. Keep local copies and the existing executive brief. Open /stakeholder-brief and /demo in separate tabs; use one browser and one demonstrator.

2. At /demo select Hospital/Clinic in the “Viewing as” row, click “Reset scenario” and confirm 0/8 complete. Reset restores all offline seed data in this browser, not just this claim; it does not reset the authenticated workspace. Use only the fictional Sarah Nakato scenario, card DHI-2026-00142, Full Blood Count tariff UGX 85,000.

3. Dry-run all eight steps, then reset again. Keep /demo open with its scripts loaded; browser-local data does not make the site an installable offline app. Do not open “Live sandbox”, /auth, /workspace or live reset controls. Never use existing authenticated claim records.

4. Dr. Ibrahim speaks and handles stakeholder questions; the demonstrator clicks only the listed actions and reports the expected result. If a control is missing, check the current step and demo role; do not bypass a disabled control.

TIMED TALK TRACK
00:00–01:00 · Frame the decision
Role: Dr. Ibrahim
Navigation: Open /stakeholder-brief. Stay on the executive introduction; then open the prepared /demo tab.
Say: “Our discussion is about one accountable journey connecting healthcare, insurance and people. Today is a synthetic workflow demonstration, not a live-service launch. We want to agree whether a bounded evaluation is worth pursuing.”
Expected: Executive brief and clear demonstration notice; no sign-in needed.

01:00–03:00 · Broker coordination — access boundary first
Role: Insurance Broker/Agency
Navigation: At /demo use the header “Viewing as” selector to choose “Insurance Broker/Agency”. Open “Client portfolio” (/portfolio); inspect existing synthetic renewal/service-request status without entering names or creating records. Return via “Guided demo” (/demo), then select Hospital/Clinic.
Say: “A broker coordinates represented-client enrollment requests, policy status, renewals and service needs with the insurer. Sarah is our single traced member but is not assigned to the seeded broker portfolio; we do not pretend the broker can open her claim or enroll her. The existing portfolio examples are clearly separate examples, not a second traced claim. Any future Sarah broker linkage requires authorized institution configuration, not a public role switch.”
Expected: Client portfolio displays synthetic applications/renewals/service requests; Sarah is absent from represented-client selection. No claim access or payment authority. No broker record is created; the eight-step claim counter remains unchanged.

03:00–06:00 · Hospital eligibility → provider documentation
Role: Hospital/Clinic
Navigation: At /demo click “Hospital/Clinic” in the Viewing as row. Step 1: “Check eligibility”. At 04:30 hand narration from hospital administrator to clinical provider; keep Hospital/Clinic selected (same existing access role). Step 2: “Submit claim (UGX 85,000)”. Remain on /demo.
Say: “The hospital front desk checks Sarah’s coverage; the clinical provider owns encounter documentation and one itemized laboratory service. Authorization and rejection handoffs need discovery; connected authorization is not shown. Member data is already seeded; this is not public registration. Evidence here is simulated filenames, not private uploads.”
Expected: Sarah is eligible; 1/8 then 2/8 complete. A synthetic claim appears, assigned for assessment.

06:00–08:00 · Human assessment
Role: Claims Assessor
Navigation: Click “Claims Assessor” in the Viewing as row (or the current “View as Claims Assessor” action). Step 3: “Start review”. Step 4: “Approve UGX 85,000”.
Say: “A person reviews the claim; rules do not make the decision. This older offline journey uses assessor approval plus insurer oversight. The separate authenticated foundation supports configurable designated insurer decisions, but we are not demonstrating that path here.”
Expected: 3/8 then 4/8 complete; claim approved, benefit usage updated, simulated settlement scheduled. Do not describe this as autonomous AI.

08:00–10:00 · Oversight → simulated settlement
Role: Insurer Administrator
Navigation: Click “Insurer Administrator”. Step 5: “Confirm oversight”. Step 6: “Run payment batch”, then “Mark paid (simulated)”.
Say: “The insurer confirms oversight; these payment labels only advance local status. No bank, mobile-money account or actual transfer is connected.”
Expected: 5/8 then 6/8 complete; settlement moves scheduled → processing → paid and the claim is settled. No funds move.

10:00–11:00 · Patient visibility; observer checkpoint only
Role: Patient → Regulatory Observer (optional supporting checkpoint)
Navigation: Click “Patient”; step 7: “Confirm status shown to patient”. Briefly click “Regulatory Observer”; step 8: “Confirm aggregate view”, completing the preserved scenario. Return immediately to the briefing; government is not the primary audience.
Say: “Sarah sees her status, not assessment notes. The final aggregate checkpoint is part of the existing demo, not the focus of this insurer, hospital, provider and broker meeting.”
Expected: 8/8 complete. Observer has no event-level audit access; no regulator endorsement implied.

11:00–13:00 · State the boundaries honestly
Role: Dr. Ibrahim + demonstrator
Navigation: Return to /presenter-pack, “Implemented versus demonstrated”. Reference /stakeholder-brief#security for gaps; do not enter the authenticated workspace.
Say: “The separate authenticated foundation has membership-scoped saved synthetic records, evidence uploads, rules-based readiness, human decisions, appeals and audit export. This walkthrough does not prove those flows or integration readiness. Connected prior authorization, external payments and production clearance remain outside this demonstration.”
Expected: Clear distinction between local demonstration, existing authenticated capabilities and remaining acceptance/security work.

13:00–15:00 · Agree the next gate
Role: Dr. Ibrahim
Navigation: Open /presenter-pack#pilot; use the downloaded one-page decision sheet. Ask the sponsor to nominate owners, scope and success measures.
Say: “Could one willing insurer and one provider team sponsor a synthetic evaluation? The 60–90 days are illustrative, not a delivery promise. Budget, responsibilities and gates need agreement before any commitment or real-data pilot.”
Expected: Record proceed / revise / defer and named proposed owners on the local paper/PDF copy. Nothing is submitted or saved by the app.

PACING
For 12 minutes: reduce broker discussion by 30 seconds, hospital/provider discussion by 30 seconds, assessment by 30 seconds, boundary explanation by 30 seconds and closing by one minute. Keep all actions and access caveats. The full script is 15 minutes; detailed Q&A follows separately.

IMPLEMENTED VERSUS DEMONSTRATED
Shown today · local simulation
Eight-step assessor approval + insurer oversight, seeded eligibility, simulated document names, local benefit usage/payment states, patient status and aggregate observer view. Reset and role transitions are browser-local only.

Existing · separate authenticated foundation
Saved synthetic policies/members/tariffs, itemized claims/private evidence, deterministic readiness/orchestration, configurable insurer human decisions, rejected-claim appeals, in-app updates, optional enrolled privileged MFA and metadata-only hash-chain audit export. Cross-role real-account save/read-back acceptance remains unverified; none is exercised in this rehearsal.

Not demonstrated / not connected
Authenticated prior-authorization request/decision flow is not meeting-ready. Offline prior authorization exists at /preauth but is outside this timed script. No autonomous AI decisions, public enrollment, actual payouts, external notifications or insurer/hospital/payment integrations. No regulatory approval or independent security assurance.

Positioning · say this plainly
Health Bridge coordinates and records; insurers, providers and brokers keep their own clinical, underwriting, financial and legal decisions. It never collects premiums or settles money. In the patient view, “Pay with insurer” is a simulated handoff to a sample insurer site; the redirect is not proof of payment.

CONTINGENCIES
Network fails after /demo is loaded: continue only if the already-open controls still work. Stay in that tab; avoid refresh, new routes or assuming offline caching. If it stops, switch immediately to the locally saved pack/PDF and narrate expected results as a walkthrough, not a successful live demonstration.

Network fails before loading: use the locally downloaded materials. Read the timed journey and identify every outcome as expected, not observed. Do not imply a text/PDF walkthrough verifies the application.

A login page appears: the wrong environment was opened. Return to the preloaded /demo tab or local pack; do not sign in, share credentials, accept invitations, claim owner access or weaken verification. Login is not required for this synthetic journey.

Unexpected claim/state or disabled action: check the demo role/current step. If time permits click “Reset scenario” and restart from step 1; this loses offline changes in that browser. If the second attempt fails, stop clicking and use the local script. Never reset the authenticated sandbox or modify its existing claims.

Demonstrator records observed pass/fail and the exact failing step after the meeting in local notes only, without credentials or patient information. Agree a follow-up rehearsal rather than promising a fix or launch date.

SKEPTICAL STAKEHOLDER Q&A
How is patient data protected?
Today uses fictional browser data only. The separate authenticated foundation uses institution memberships, row-level boundaries, private evidence and audited writes. Before real data: Uganda-specific privacy/legal review (including DPPA 2019 obligations), legal basis, consent/retention responsibilities, mandatory privileged MFA rollout, rate limits, malware scanning, independent security testing and verified recovery must be resolved. No compliance certification is claimed.

Will it integrate with our insurer or hospital system?
No external insurer, hospital, bank or mobile-money integration is connected. Inventory systems, approved fields, identifiers, interfaces and ownership first; validate coding and tariffs, then separately scope reconciliation, reliability and integration costs. Do not assume an API or promise delivery dates.

What does the regulator see, and has it approved this?
No endorsement or approval is claimed. The offline observer view is aggregate-only and simulated. The authenticated observer requires explicit institutional reporting permissions; it is not blanket access to clinical records. Agree statutory reporting and Insurance Regulatory Authority engagement where appropriate with local advisers.

What will it cost?
There is no quotation. Budget placeholders cover setup, training, support, hosting/storage, independent reviews and separately scoped integration. Agree institutions, users, synthetic claim volume, retention, support and taxes before a written proposal; no price, savings or ROI is fabricated.

Can this be implemented in 60–90 days?
That range is an illustrative synthetic evaluation window, not a production implementation commitment. Participation, available staff, system access, security/legal review and defect closure determine feasibility. Real-data use and payments require separate approvals and readiness gates.

Who owns the pilot and final decisions?
Propose an insurer sponsor and one provider lead with a named joint accountable pilot owner, demonstrator, independent insurer decision-maker, assessor, patient representative and privacy/security leads. Names and duties remain to be agreed. Humans retain final decisions; a platform operator or agent cannot approve, reject or release funds on their behalf.

What happens during outages, missing evidence or disputed decisions?
This rehearsal falls back to downloaded materials; it proves no production offline processing. In the authenticated foundation missing required evidence blocks approval, review exceptions remain visible and independent rejected-claim appeals preserve history. Agree operating hours, support/escalation owners, downtime procedures, recovery targets and manual reconciliation before live operations.

Is the agentic system already making decisions?
No. Existing readiness/orchestration is deterministic advisory support. It consolidates evidence and exceptions; it is not autonomous AI, clinical diagnosis or a fraud finding. The older offline script uses assessor approval and insurer oversight; the separate authenticated single-final-decision configuration still requires an authorized independent human.

Are you an insurer, payment company or broker?
No. Health Bridge is a neutral coordination and interoperability layer. Premiums are paid on each insurer’s own approved external gateway; claim decisions and settlement remain the insurer’s. Payment status is shown as confirmed only from trusted insurer confirmation, which is a proposed interface, not built today.

Who is responsible when something goes wrong?
Clinical issues: provider. Coverage, payment and claim decisions: insurer, via its appeal process. Broker advice: broker. Health Bridge: routing accuracy, access control, availability and the audit record of what was exchanged.

Health Bridge Uganda · Pilot decision sheet
DISCUSSION ONLY · synthetic evaluation · no price, date or live-service commitment

PROPOSED SCOPE
One willing insurer + one provider team; fictional members and one agreed laboratory/service subset. Rehearse configuration, eligibility, itemized claims/evidence, recommendation, independent human decision, rejected-claim appeal, in-app status and simulated settlement/audit. Exclude real enrollment/data, external messages, integration and money movement.

PARTICIPANTS / ACCOUNTABLE OWNERSHIP
Joint pilot owner: [TBD]; insurer sponsor/decision-maker: [TBD]; provider lead: [TBD]; assessor: [TBD]; patient representative: [TBD]; technical demonstrator/support: [TBD]; privacy/security/legal leads: [TBD]. Broker and authorized observer participate only if agreed; observer access remains aggregate and permission-scoped.

ILLUSTRATIVE 60–90 DAY WINDOW
Days 1–15: scope, owners, synthetic cases and gate agreement. Days 16–30: invited confirmed accounts, configuration and training. Days 31–60: supervised cross-role rehearsals, defect closure and security/recovery evidence. Optional days 61–90: retest, independent reviews and written go/no-go. Day 60 review may close or extend the evaluation; no start date or delivery promise.

PROPOSED MEASURABLE GATES — AGREE BEFORE STARTING
10/10 scripted synthetic cases save and read back across permitted roles, including approved, request-information and rejected/appealed outcomes; 0 unauthorized cross-tenant reads/writes in the agreed negative tests; 100% of final decisions have reason + actor + time; missing required evidence blocks every approval attempt; 3/3 duplicate processing retries create no duplicate run/payment; appeal retains the original decision and settled claims cannot reopen; exported metadata chain verifies with 0 mismatches.

OPERATIONAL / REAL-DATA GATE
Name escalation and recovery owners; demonstrate one restore/downtime rehearsal against agreed recovery targets; resolve all agreed critical/high security findings; complete desktop/mobile role acceptance. Any real-data stage needs separate Uganda privacy/legal, clinical and security review, retention/consent responsibilities and explicit written authorization. Payments/integrations require a separate scope.

UNCOMMITTED BUDGET (UGX; NO AMOUNTS PROPOSED)
Setup/training [____]; evaluation support [____]; hosting/storage [____]; independent security/legal review [____]; contingency [____]; total [____]. Taxes/terms [TBD]. Future integration [separate estimate]. Sponsor/funding owner [TBD]; written scope and quotation required.

DECISION / NEXT ACTION — COMPLETE LOCALLY
Proceed to synthetic scoping [ ]  Revise [ ]  Defer [ ]. Agreed scope/targets: [____]. Accountable owner: [____]. Dependencies: [____]. Next review date: [____]. Stakeholder sign-off: [____]. This is not a contract, regulatory clearance or permission to launch.


FOUR-STAKEHOLDER VALUE MATRIX
Discussion hypotheses and expected benefits, not measured outcomes.

INSURANCE COMPANIES
Pain: Eligibility uncertainty, evidence gaps, inconsistent adjudication, suspected anomalies and limited cost oversight.
Benefit: Expected: clearer coverage checks, explainable exceptions, tariff comparison and accountable human decisions; no proven savings or fraud detection claim.
Required decision: Nominate decision authority, required evidence, escalation thresholds and cost oversight owners.
Likely objection: Will flags cause false accusations or replace our adjudicators?
Evidence needed: Agreed synthetic edge cases, cited rule sources, false-positive review, reasoned decisions, tenant-denial tests and reconciled simulated totals.

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS
Pain: Uncertain eligibility, authorization delays, rejected claims, disputed receivables and fragmented insurer handoffs.
Benefit: Expected: earlier confirmation, clearer evidence/rejection follow-up and receivable status visibility. Settlement is simulated, not a collection guarantee.
Required decision: Name front-desk, billing and rejection owners; agree insurer contracts/tariffs and authorization escalation.
Likely objection: Will this add work or duplicate our hospital system?
Evidence needed: Walk through one front-desk-to-billing case, missing evidence and rejection correction; map current systems and measure agreed handoff times. Connected authorization is not meeting-ready.

HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
Pain: Incomplete encounter documentation, unclear billable evidence, unclean claims and missing status feedback.
Benefit: Expected: more consistent encounter/item documentation, evidence checklists and visible claim status; no promised denial reduction or clinical diagnosis.
Required decision: Agree documentation/coding responsibilities, service subset, clinical review boundaries and training owner.
Likely objection: Will clinicians face extra data entry or automated medical judgments?
Evidence needed: Clinician-reviewed synthetic encounter/item list, required-document cases, coding validation and status read-back. Hospital administration and clinical providers share the existing provider demo role, not new permissions.

INSURANCE BROKERS
Pain: Member enrollment handoffs, policy-status uncertainty, renewal tracking and disconnected service coordination.
Benefit: Expected: authorized client portfolio, insurer-directed applications/renewals and service requests. Enrollment remains insurer-controlled; no public live enrollment.
Required decision: Agree represented-client permissions, insurer underwriting handoff, renewal/service owners and minimum necessary fields.
Likely objection: Can brokers see medical claims, decide coverage or move money?
Evidence needed: Portfolio/application status examples, scope-denial checks and insurer acceptance path. Brokers cannot view claim files, adjudicate or pay; the traced member is not automatically a broker client.

PATIENTS / POLICYHOLDERS
Pain: Unclear cover, premium and claim status spread across insurer, broker and hospital.
Benefit: Expected: one place to see own authorised policy, eligibility and claim status, and a safe handoff to the chosen insurer’s own payment site.
Required decision: Which insurer data may be shown, under what consent, and how dependants are handled.
Likely objection: Is Health Bridge taking my money or my medical data?
Evidence needed: Premiums go only to the insurer’s own gateway; status shows pending until insurer confirmation; own-record isolation tests.

Health Bridge Uganda · Stakeholder discovery
ONE ATTENDEE · COMPLETE LOCALLY · No patient identifiers, credentials or confidential records. No app intake.

ATTENDEE CONTEXT
Role [ ] Insurer [ ] Hospital administrator [ ] Healthcare provider [ ] Broker. Institution (optional, consented): [________]. Responsibility: [________].

CURRENT SYSTEMS AND PROCESS
Policy/eligibility system: [________]. Hospital/clinical/billing system: [________]. Broker/renewal tools: [________]. Current handoffs / manual work: [________].

PAIN AND BASELINE
Top three pains and affected steps: 1 [________] 2 [________] 3 [________]. Current turnaround / rejection causes / follow-up effort (approximate, non-identifying): [________].

APPROXIMATE VOLUMES — OPTIONAL
Period [________]. Members / applications [________]. Encounters / claims [________]. Rejections / renewals / service requests [________]. Estimates only; no records or claim identifiers.

INTEGRATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS
Systems/interfaces available or unknown: [________]. Required data fields and permitted exchanges: [________]. Coding/tariff sources: [________]. Evidence needed before evaluation: [________].

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING CONSTRAINTS
Eligibility / evidence / decisions / rejection / renewal owners (roles): [________]. Support hours, downtime/manual fallback, staffing and training constraints: [________].

PRIVACY, COMPLIANCE AND ACCESS
Legal/privacy review owner (role): [________]. Consent/legal basis, retention, storage-location or access constraints to validate: [________]. Independent reviews required: [________]. No regulatory clearance assumed.

PILOT WILLINGNESS — NO COMMITMENT
[ ] Interested in discussion [ ] Need evidence [ ] Not now. Possible synthetic scope: [________]. Success measures to agree: [________]. Key blockers: [________]. Permission for agreed follow-up: [ ] Yes [ ] No.

Health Bridge Uganda · Decision & next steps
COMPLETE LOCALLY WITH CONSENT · Discussion record, not a contract, enrollment or launch authorization.

DISCUSSION OUTCOME
[ ] Explore synthetic evaluation [ ] Revise scope [ ] Request evidence [ ] Defer. Rationale / open concerns: [________________________________].

PROPOSED SPONSOR AND INSTITUTIONS — CONFIRM WILLINGNESS
Named sponsor: [________________]. Institution / role: [________________]. Proposed pilot institution(s): [________________]. Confirmed willing? [ ] Yes [ ] Not yet. No participation is assumed.

REQUIREMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Named requirements owner: [________________]. Joint pilot owner, if agreed: [________________]. Insurer decision / hospital billing / provider documentation / broker coordination leads: [________________].

SCOPE AND REQUIREMENTS TO AGREE
Synthetic service subset / cases: [________________]. Existing system mapping / integration questions: [________________]. Acceptance measures and evidence: [________________]. Exclusions and dependencies: [________________].

FOLLOW-UP MEETING — SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT
Proposed date/time: [________________]. Participants: [________________]. Agenda: [________________]. Scheduling owner: [________________]. Confirmation pending? [ ] Yes [ ] No.

ACTIONS AND EVIDENCE OWNERS
Action 1 / owner / target review: [________________]. Action 2 / owner / target review: [________________]. Privacy/security/legal requirements owner: [________________].

COMMERCIAL AND APPROVAL BOUNDARY
Budget owner: [________________]. Budget: [uncommitted / estimate requested]. Written scope/quotation and institutional authorization needed. Illustrative 60–90 day evaluation is not a delivery promise. No real patient data, actual payments or production claims.

LOCAL RECORD AND CONSENT
Recorded by (consented): [________________]. Date: [________________]. Follow-up permission [ ] Yes [ ] No. Store through your agreed institutional process; Health Bridge does not submit or save this sheet. Do not add patient data, credentials or confidential records.