PHARMORIS PRODUCT STATUS · ARCHIVED SNAPSHOT FROM 20 JULY 2026
What the archived evidence supported, what remained open and what was not claimed.
This archived page separates target design, repository evidence, release evidence and future local decisions. It is not a current release record.
Archived snapshot · Evidence date 20 July 2026CURRENT PUBLIC NOTE · 27 AUGUST 2026
Readiness requires an exact candidate and an independent assessment route.
PHARMORIS remains in controlled, non production development. NEUVIOR is preparing the exact version evidence needed for an independent readiness review; no independent TRL has yet been assigned.
This note does not upgrade the archived release state below. A maturity statement must identify the assessor, framework, exact component or system, version, environment, date, limitations and publication authority before it becomes a public product claim.
Candidate
Repository head, build, schema, configuration, environment and intended use boundary must be frozen and attributable.
Assessment
No independent TRL or operational environment result is currently published.
No inference
Media, grants, demos, plans and historical tests do not establish product qualification, deployment or adoption.
ARCHIVED POSITION · 20 JULY 2026
Representative at the archived baseline. Exact head evidence still controls any release.
This archived record documented a representative walkthrough and a founder target of 4 August 2026. That target date has passed. It is not presented as a completed release. Current evidence must be revalidated before any product status is upgraded.
Expired founder target
4 August 2026 was a founder target. No completed release is inferred from the date.
Exact head release state
NO GO until every applicable required row passes.
Deployed identity
The current deployed SHA is not reconciled in the V5 exact head manifest.
NHS status
Approval, adoption, deployment and future local go live are not claimed.
Outcome status
Realised savings and patient outcomes are not established.
TEN SURFACE INVENTORY · 20 JULY 2026
No surface is classified as working at this baseline.
The classifications below are conservative dated evidence states. They do not upgrade automatically from a successful looking demonstration, repository activity or a test result from another version.
Summary: 0 working, 6 partial, 3 representative and 1 target only.
- 01Action Board
- A visible board can look operational while its exact API, running identity, persistence, tenant scope and fallback behaviour remain unresolved.Partial
- 02ActionCase detail
- Interface and domain artefacts exist, but their exact contract, tenant enforcement, persistence and deployment identity are not one approved current product.Partial
- 03Source provenance
- A source label or receipt looking field does not prove authorised operational integration, freshness or an immutable link at the exact candidate.Partial
- 04Evidence Pack
- The strongest current evidence is a representation and target design, not persisted working governance.Representative
- 05Publication and acknowledgement
- Successful looking hand off rows can imply provider use, persistence or adoption without exact evidence.Partial
- 06Value Review
- A Value Review state or card can be mistaken for independently validated or realised value.Representative
- 07Audit and export
- Code and test evidence does not establish an approved, deployed, genuine export path with complete negative state proof.Partial
- 08Source adapters
- Definitions and receipts are recorded, but no production grade operational ingestor is established.Target only
- 09Tenant and role behaviour
- Role labelled screens do not prove complete server enforced authority, isolation or the required negative matrix.Partial
- 10End to end workflow
- The journey credibly represents intended product logic, not current deployment, buyer readiness, future local acceptance or production evidence.Representative
RELEASE IDENTITIES · 20 JULY 2026
Local, remote, candidate and deployed identities are separate facts.
Dirty or uncommitted work and unmerged reviews can contain relevant development evidence, but they are not a frozen release candidate and are not public proof of a running environment.
- 01Local repository head
- Observed during the dated audit with work in progress; not a frozen, reviewed candidate.
- 02Remote repository head
- A dated repository reference; not automatically the candidate or running version.
- 03Candidate SHA
- Not frozen in a completed exact head evidence manifest.
- 04Deployed SHA
- Not reconciled in the V5 exact head evidence manifest.
ARCHIVED SOURCE AUDIT · 17 JULY 2026
An inventory, a receipt and an operational adapter are different records.
The archived audit used several source categories. The underlying counts are not republished here because they require reconciliation against the current source register. These categories do not support a live source, connector, real time feed or production adapter claim.
- 01Candidate source inventory
- A discovery record is not permission, connectivity or an implemented source.
- 02Definition record
- A definition describes a potential source and intended handling. It does not prove access.
- 03Receipt evidence
- A receipt records a specific item or event. It does not establish a recurring feed.
- 04Rights and permissions
- Licensing, lawful use and technical access must be validated for every intended source.
- 05Operational adapters
- No production grade operational ingestor is established by the supplied register.
RELEASE CONTROL · 20 JULY 2026
Missing evidence is a no go, not a positive inference.
A blank, PENDING, UNKNOWN, missing, NOT RUN, BLOCKED, INVALIDATED or FAIL mandatory gate is a no go. The supplied exact head manifest does not evidence deployment readiness.
A plan, blank cell, mock, screenshot, historic test or absent result cannot be converted into PASS for the current candidate.
PASS
Permitted only when the required evidence exists for the named scope and exact candidate.
NO GO
Applies while any mandatory gate is blank, pending, unknown, missing, not run, blocked, invalidated or failed.
STALE
A previously accepted record requires revalidation after the candidate, environment, scope or evidence changes.
MATURITY BOUNDARY · 20 JULY 2026
Maturity remains an evidence question.
The archived record included a founder view of maturity. No independent maturity assessment is published here. A founder view does not upgrade a product surface, release gate, deployed state or future local decision.
Source
Founder view recorded in the dated decision freeze.
Limit
No independent maturity assessment is published.
No upgrade
Does not convert partial, representative or target only evidence into working status.
EXPLICIT EXCLUSIONS · 20 JULY 2026
What is not claimed at this status date.
At the archived status date, PHARMORIS was described as staff facing, human governed and non production.
- 01
No autonomous prescribing
No patient specific advice or point of prescribing clinical decision support claim.
- 02
No patient identifiable data
Patient facing functionality, patient identifiable data and EPR write back are outside the August scope.
- 03
No NHS status claim
No NHS backing, approval, deployment, adoption or future local go live is claimed.
- 04
No assurance completion claim
No DTAC, DCB, clinical safety, procurement or generic certification completion is claimed.
- 05
No outcome claim
No customer result, realised saving or patient outcome is claimed.
UPDATE GATE · 20 JULY 2026
Only approved replacement evidence may upgrade this page.
This is an archived snapshot. The candidate, source register, evidence pack, environment and scope must be revalidated before any current status is published or upgraded. If current evidence cannot be established, the truthful public state is Current evidence unavailable.
Exact head manifest
Name the repositories, commits, build, schema, configuration and environment for one frozen candidate.
Mandatory evidence
Complete the applicable tests, failure paths, source controls, security, accessibility and operational gates.
Separate decisions
Keep supplier release, controlled evaluation and future local go live decisions distinct.
Named status owner
Record the reviewer, approval, review date, refresh rule and invalidation trigger.
- Podcast appearance. AI Ethics Now / University of Warwick IATL. AI and Accountability: When Does a Suggestion Become a Decision?. 23 August 2026.
- Contributed opinion. TechRadar Pro. Five questions to test whether an AI stack is truly under your control. 11 August 2026.
- Founder commentary. ET Pharma. India’s pharma quality reset will be won after the inspector leaves. 4 August 2026.
- NEUVIOR analysis. NEUVIOR Insights. From pilot theatre to financial grip: how NHS CFOs should evaluate AI in medicines optimisation. 18 March 2026.
- NEUVIOR analysis. NEUVIOR Insights. NHS digital programmes do not fail on dashboards. They fail on deployment. 20 March 2026.
- Expert commentary. Manufacturing Chemist. NICE approval is not enough: why the UK's next medicines challenge is operational delivery. 4 June 2026.
- Founder commentary. PharmaTimes. How we roll. 10 June 2026.
- Editorial roundup. Digital Health. Digital Health Coffee Time Briefing. 26 May 2026.
Classified public record
ANALYSIS + EVIDENCE BOUNDARY
Read the argument. Verify the product separately.
Published analysis can explain why governance matters. It cannot evidence security, clinical authority, certification, product readiness or local approval. Use the dated NEUVIOR records for that.
AI and Accountability: When Does a Suggestion Become a Decision?
Varun Sharma joins AI Ethics Now to examine false confidence, human responsibility and the point where AI assisted suggestions become accountable decisions.
Hear where an AI suggestion becomes a decisionFive questions to test whether an AI stack is truly under your control
In TechRadar Pro, Varun Sharma sets out five tests for enterprise AI control across provenance, infrastructure, legal authority and safe exit.
Test provenance, control and safe exitFrom pilot theatre to financial grip: how NHS CFOs should evaluate AI in medicines optimisation
NHS finance leaders do not need another AI pitch. They need a disciplined way to decide whether a technology can release value within the financial rules they are already being held to.
See how a finance leader should test an AI claim
NEUVIOR Insights and After Publication reflections are company or founder analysis. Publisher records evidence publication, not endorsement, adoption, product readiness, savings or clinical outcomes.
ASK ABOUT ONE RECORD
Name the status, source or gate you want to inspect.
State the exact claim, intended decision, product version or source category in question. NEUVIOR should respond with the relevant dated record, scope and limitation or say that the evidence is not established. Do not send patient identifiable, confidential or security sensitive material.