Clinical coding.
With evidence.

23 synthetic letters tested the coding workflow. These are the recorded development results from 9 October 2026.

Cases were reused during tuning with an in-house answer key. These expected-item counts are not overall accuracy or independent validation. Expected uncoded handling was 31/46.

A suggestion still needs clinical review.

Clinical fact recall — 153/153: Did the expected item appear in the extracted results?

SNOMED concept matching — 106/107: One incorrect concept remained. The anaphylaxis example lost detail in its suggested wasp-sting concept.

Clinical context — 130/132: Active, historical, suspected and negated meanings were checked. Two assertions were incorrect.

The local PP-OCRv6 recognizer was tested on selected lines from 10 public-letter documents new to that recognizer benchmark, on 1 October 2026.

Manually selected line crops, not automated whole-page recognition. An 11th new photographic example could not be localized for this line test. Earlier project use or pretraining overlap cannot be excluded. Related and previous examples are counted separately.

Reading text correctly is one part of coding.

Exact-line recognition — 70/77: Recognition was compared with a frozen visual transcription of the selected clinical lines.

Clinical field retention — 74/77: Clinical probes included names, doses, units and context wording. Exact-line and field checks ask different questions.

Negation recognition — 16/18: Two negation probes were missed. These OCR checks do not establish SNOMED mapping, medication association or clinical safety.