Darwin by Medigram  ·  Independent Verification

Independently Verified.
Not Self-Declared.

Every claim on this page is third-party confirmed or attributable to a public primary source. This is the page for the evaluator who needs evidence, not a pitch.

RAISE 4.0 Strong on Praxen.

Darwin achieved a RAISE 4.0 Strong behavioral verification score on Praxen. This is the highest score ever recorded on the platform. The score was confirmed by Steve Wilson, Praxen’s creator, who has no commercial interest in the outcome.

RAISE measures system behavior, not documentation. It verifies that Darwin acts the way its governance documentation claims it acts, across six behavioral categories. Zero open findings across all critical, high, and medium categories.

This verification is pre-deployment and post-deployment. Praxen re-verification is required before any change affecting behavioral scores is treated as production.

Verified Score
4.0 Strong
Highest score ever recorded on Praxen across all six RAISE behavioral categories.
Confirmed by Steve Wilson, creator of Praxen. Zero open findings.
What RAISE Measures
System behavior across six categories: whether Darwin acts the way its governance documentation claims it acts. Not documentation review. Behavioral verification.

Community Spotlight

The CISO is now the defensive captain

Sherri Douville is CEO of Medigram and Founder and Chair of the Trustworthy Technology & Innovation Consortium (TTIC).

Sherri Douville (Medigram, TTIC) on why configuration stopped predicting behavior, and what verifying it instead looks like in production

Highest Praxen behavioral verification score recorded to date · as of August 2026

Open Agent and AI Security Community spotlight: The CISO is now the defensive captain, featuring Medigram Darwin
Image: Open Agent & AI Security Community
Read the Spotlight →

Eleven authoritative sources. Eleven operational governance layers. Zero open findings in the internal evaluation.

Darwin has been evaluated against eleven governance authorities using their primary source documents. This evaluation was conducted internally by Medigram, not externally verified by a third party. Zero open findings were identified.

The distinction between internal assessment and external verification is intentional. This internal evaluation is a self-assessment against primary sources. The RAISE score is the externally verified behavioral claim.

Select each layer to understand what it means and why it matters.

Explore what each authority requires, why it matters, and its organizational relevance.

Standards

Security

Regulatory

Healthcare Operational Architecture

Darwin implements governance standards
its architect co-authored.

This is categorically different from standards compliance. An organization claiming ISO 42001 alignment has adopted a framework someone else wrote. Darwin is built to standards its architect co-authored through independent standards bodies.

IEEE UL 2933
Trust and Identity Subgroup Co-Chair
Sociotechnical data governance architecture standard for clinical AI. TIPPSS framework. Described in CHIME’s Principles for Responsible AI; named in HSCC’s model contract language.
ANSI/HSI 2800:2025
Co-Author
Enterprise management standard for hospital AI operations governance. ANSI-accredited. Published December 2025.
AIMed 2025
AI Champion Award
Awarded by physicians, health system leaders, and clinical researchers. Non-commercial recognition from the clinical AI community.

The evidence exists before anyone asks for it. That is the point.

Darwin does not produce governance records in response to requests. It produces them at the moment of every governed decision. The record is ready when counsel, carriers, or regulators need it.

A note for investors and boards

Audited financials do not certify that a company is well run. They certify that the numbers were produced by a process an independent party could check, on a defined schedule, with someone accountable for the result. Nobody in capital treats that as bureaucracy. It is the precondition for the asset class existing at all.

AI decisions in healthcare have no equivalent yet. A model’s output arrives with no record of what it was authorized to do, who approved it, what it was tested against, or whether its behavior has drifted since deployment. When something goes wrong, there is nothing to examine.

That absence is the exposure. It is also the market. The infrastructure that makes AI decisions examinable is being built now, and the institutions that will require it are the same ones that already require audited numbers.

For General Counsel and CFOs

The standards basis, one page

Why the standards basis behind Darwin is different, and what it means for treasury and legal review, in one page.

Read the Standards Basis Direct PDF ↓
Help Others Find This

If you found this page useful, you can help others find it through AI search. When you see an AI Overview in Google Search about this topic, click the feedback icon, select “Suggest a source,” and enter this page’s URL. Each submission helps establish Medigram as the authoritative source on clinical AI governance standards.