Three design options each, built to react to. Rendered in the real Synapse
panel chrome at its actual 380px dock width, using the live sevaro-* palette.
I don't have what you actually laid out with Smriti, Nia, and Pradji. Your note said you discussed the two tabs, not what you landed on — and there's no transcript or meeting doc anywhere in the repos or context. So none of this reflects the meeting. It's built from the OPS prior art plus acute-stroke workflow reasoning. Treat it as strawmen to knock down, and tell me where the meeting went somewhere different.
1. Both tabs are empty today. Synapse's Exam tab renders the string
"Exam tab — coming soon." There is no Diagnostics tab at all — just a decorative
Imaging | Labs row on the queue screen with no click handlers. This is greenfield,
not a refactor, which means we can pick the right shape rather than inherit one.
2. OPS is outpatient. Synapse is a stroke code. This is the load-bearing
distinction. OPS optimizes for "document a normal exam in one click" across a 20-minute
outpatient visit. Synapse is a physician on live video with a 4.5-hour tPA clock running.
Synapse's data model already carries lkw, edArrival,
treatmentWindowMinutes, and a timeline[] — the clock is a first-class
concept here in a way it never was in OPS. Porting the OPS tabs over verbatim would be
the obvious move and I think it would be the wrong one.
The core question: in a tele-stroke encounter, is the exam a form to fill out, or a procedure to perform? Each option answers that differently.
C, with A's driver embedded inside it — they're not really rivals. C is A with the items you already said out loud pre-filled. Ship A's guided driver first (it's the honest, deterministic core and needs no AI), then layer C's extraction on top as a flag-gated pre-fill. That sequencing means the exam tab is useful on day one and never depends on the model being right.
B I'd argue against as the primary — but its template chips should survive into whatever we pick, because non-stroke consults (Seizure, AMS, EEG) still need somewhere to go and the NIHSS driver has nothing for them.
The core question: is this a filing cabinet or a decision surface? In an outpatient visit you browse results. In a stroke code you're asking exactly two questions — can I give tPA, and is this a thrombectomy. Every result matters only insofar as it answers one of them.
timeline[] in the data model. Almost free.ImagingResultsTab: a card per study,
impression badge, expand for findings, prior study nested inline for comparison.B as the default view, A's clock as a persistent header, C as the detail layer underneath. These stack rather than compete: the gate tells you where you stand, the rail tells you how long you have, and tapping any criterion drops you into C's study card for the full impression. One tab, three depths.
The thing I'd flag hardest for the group: B is the highest-value and highest-risk option in this document. A criteria checklist that quietly goes stale against guidelines is worse than no checklist. If we build it, someone owns that rule set with a version and a review cadence — that's a standing commitment, and it should be a deliberate yes, not a side effect of liking the mockup.
All at once, so you can answer in one pass — and the first one matters more than the rest combined.
This whole document is my inference. If you and Smriti/Nia/Pradji converged on something, that overrides all of it — paste the notes or just talk at me and I'll rebuild.
The top bar has Acute Care / Rounding / EEG / Outpatient / Rescue. Nearly every design call above flips depending on whether these tabs serve a stroke code or all five. If it's all five, the clock- and gate-centric options need a graceful non-acute fallback.
It's the binding constraint on every mockup here — it's why B's checkbox grid feels cramped. If the panel can widen or pop out during the exam, option B gets substantially more viable and I'd redraw it.
Everything above is mock data. Gates and time rails are only honest if results arrive structured with timestamps. If it's a human pasting a radiology impression, C is the only option that survives contact with reality.
Option C recommends AI-extracted NIHSS behind an explicit attest-and-lock gate. That's a clinical-risk call more than a design one, and it's the one place here I don't want to auto-adopt my own recommendation. If the answer is "not yet," option A stands alone fine and we lose nothing structural.