An open record of what we are building, what we can show, and what still needs an answer.
Established 23 October 2026. These are preparation records, not findings about any person or organisation. No independent evaluation has been completed.
Care Continuity now brings experience-informed checks and the Cognitive Disability Standards Refresh (ID/ABI) source material into the same path. Start with what needs checking: the person’s voice, accepted responsibility, the service’s actual role, relevant interests, deadlines, a useful fallback and the evidence behind a conclusion.
The finder uses local word matching and disclosed topic vocabulary. It can miss material or return a poor match. Source browsing and human routes remain available; the search does not decide a case, diagnose anyone or establish misconduct. Extracted text can lose table relationships, illustrations and reading order, so original documents remain linked.
Development checks and remaining gaps
Seven of eight source-based narrative questions and eight of eight added development checks met their recorded matching criteria. A separate development spot check still found missed material about evaluation and behaviour-related medicines. These checks do not establish that every question will find the right source. Professional and disability-led validation remain pending.
What this publication changes
This is an access and navigation update. The Zenodo v3 record, published 23 October 2026, still preserves the core v1.0 dated 25 September 2025. The audit and addendum remain v0.3. Historical crosswalks retain their 20 December 2025 review date. Their proposals are separate from current official-guidance cards; publication does not renew source dates or establish best practice.
QI remains under its existing review and is not public. Meet Future You remains a separate financial-learning project; its calculator and draft translations remain review candidates. Independent professional review, funding and paid disability-led testing are not confirmed by this update.
Two papers are published. QI is still under review. Meet Future You now has a project page; its calculator still needs independent review. Paid testing and professional review need an agreed scope and funding.
New releases, review and Meet Future You · 24 October 2026
These are research and reform proposals, separate from official guidance used in assistant answers. Publication is not independent professional validation or evidence that the proposed protections work. Read the release overview, versions and limits.
Meet Future You, also called the Pain Card project, is now connected as a distinct financial-learning project. Its calculator and four draft language versions remain private review candidates. The public page explains the review work and points to ASIC MoneySmart resources available now. An information-page connection is not a public calculator launch.
A fixed-version review decision pack scopes the smallest useful legal, clinical, disability-led and accessibility reviews, plus a separate optional financial-learning review. It retains paid participant and chosen-support costs, publication of adverse findings and freedom to stop. See the review and paid-testing route.
Six earlier scoping enquiries have verified sending records; no accepted review, host, testing budget or participant session is confirmed in the project record. Follow-ups remain scheduled under the existing authorisations. This is not a claim that no replies exist. Private correspondence and identifying participant information stay private.
Care Continuity remains free to visitors, without paid priority, advertising, referral commissions or sale of visitor data. No new engagement, expenditure or recruitment is announced by this update.
The first pilot is still being planned. People with disability, people who need mental health support and workers should be paid to help design and test it. A real service needs a responsible team, clear funding and safe ways to handle private information.
Read the full entry
The first proposed pilot would involve paid co-design with people with disability, people with mental health support needs and workers, supported by independent legal, clinical and evaluation expertise.
It would begin with fictional scenarios or properly authorised retrospective material. The initial questions are practical: can people understand the process, does it preserve choice, do handovers get accepted, are missing records visible, and does the work have a funded human response?
A real action should not be marked complete merely because somebody acknowledges an email. Evidence, the person’s account, conflicts and an appropriate human review must be considered. The fictional exercise demonstrates a rule; it does not prove a signature or outcome is genuine.
Decisions still open: independent stewardship; lawful authority and consent; secure storage; accessible and offline routes; who responds and how quickly; succession; error and challenge processes; funding; licence; and an independent decision on whether any live pilot may proceed.
Publication standard: publish what was decided, why, who is responsible, what evidence supports it, known limits and the next review. Mark corrections with a date and explanation rather than silently replacing a material claim. Do not publish identifying case details.
Development update · 23 October 2026
The Care Continuity guide and assistant is now published as a free public test release. You can use its information without an account or AI. Optional AI runs on a compatible device and selects existing source cards; it does not write new legal or clinical instructions.
The release contains nine guidance cards linked to eight official sources checked on 23 October 2026. Coverage is limited to WA/Victoria police information, some legal-help routes and national hospital guidance. Source dates, jurisdiction and limits are visible. Unreviewed or expired sources are excluded from interactive answers.
Eight draft learning modules cover supported choice, communication, handover, evidence, proposed two-key checks, worker resources, governance and responsible AI. They are not accredited qualifications or CPD certification.
A targeted white-paper audit and versioned addendum record 15 findings, including overdue reviews, three bibliography corrections and conflicting proposed workforce requirements. All 390 PDF pages were text-screened with focused reading of selected sections. This is not a complete line-by-line, legal or clinical validation. Original proposals remain distinct from current official guidance.
Daily source-review checks are scheduled for 09:00 Europe/London, with alerts when action is needed. Changed pages are review signals, not automatic legal findings. Public revisions still require review.
The testing guide, pilot decision request and Attorneys-General brief are public. Council for Intellectual Disability and People with Disability Australia are possible co-design discussions, not agreed partners. A proposed 12-week pilot starts only after written acceptance of scope and resources. No host, funding, government approval, professional validation or participant sessions are confirmed.
A model test selected general hospital cards while missing the more direct discharge card. The release now retains all matching checked guidance alongside model selections, and matches “leaving hospital” to discharge. This is a documented limitation of the small model, not proof that it can decide what help is suitable.
Browser checks covered guidance selection, a running model, narrow-screen layout, learning feedback and clearing questions. Automated checks covered jurisdiction, expiry, model-output restrictions, links and private-content boundaries. Independent accessibility and disability-led comprehension testing remain pending.
No new paid model API or AI subscription was purchased. No advertising, paid priority, referral commissions, sale of visitor data, case uploads or app analytics have been added. A shared model for less capable devices and ongoing human review still need an operator and funding. Read the release record.
Publication update · 23 October 2026
The review package is now published on Zenodo as repository version 3: read the public review release (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23594319). It preserves 16 unchanged original files and adds five companion files.
The targeted review records 15 findings, including three verified bibliography mismatches. Full validation remains pending. The repository’s v3 label is distinct from the version printed inside the original core PDF; that original has not been silently rewritten. No private case records are included in this release.
Independent review enquiries · 23 October 2026
The assistant release 0.6 now uses Zenodo repository v3 and its audit/addendum v0.3. The original 2025 core PDF and historical crosswalks retain their version dates. Copies of the five deposited companion files, the source provenance and previous edition are linked openly.
A public independent-review and paid-testing kit contains a reviewer brief, participant-session proposal and issue/decision log. It proposes paid self-advocate leadership from the start, professional checking before participant tasks, and eight adult testers in two rounds. Funding, rates, access support and consent arrangements must be agreed before any invitation.
Three public-material-only scoping enquiries were sent today: Council for Intellectual Disability for comprehension and usability testing; Australian Centre for Disability Law for a suitable legal-review scope and any missing WA/Victorian expertise; and Centre for Disability Studies for clinical guidance and selected worker lessons. The messages ask for named leads, relevant qualifications, conflicts, capacity, costs and timing. Sending has been verified in the sender's Sent folder; recipient acceptance or engagement is not established.
These organisations are candidates, not agreed partners or endorsers. No spending, contract, reviewer appointment, host or participant session has been agreed through these enquiries. Private case records were not shared. Individual replies and identifying participant information will not be published by default.
Forty automated checks passed. Browser checks covered the new paper links, live source loading, the guidance route, keyboard access and narrow-screen layout. These checks do not constitute independent professional or accessibility validation. The daily source-review automation now watches the v3 edition and its version family; official guidance retains its separate review dates.
This website is free to use. It does not collect private case records, sell personal information or offer paid priority. A future service will need clear funding and independent oversight.
Read the full entry
The pilot is intended to remain free to the people using it, including workers and professionals. There are no paid tiers, advertisements, referral commissions, paid priority, sale of personal data or training of a model on visitor data in this prototype.
Operating a responsible service still costs money. A future host must publish its funding sources, conditions, material costs and conflicts. No funding commitment or organisational partnership has been accepted or confirmed.
Software settings and publicity cannot guarantee independence. A constitution, appropriate licence, continuity arrangements, correction rights and independent oversight need legal and practical review before live service operation. An open-source label alone does not prevent commercial reuse.
Current decision: keep public information and fictional demonstrations separate from confidential case handling. No personal case records or stories are collected here.
Care Continuity is being developed to help people keep their voice when support changes. This website has information and a made-up practice example. It is not a staffed care service.
Read the full entry
A person should not lose their voice, support or an unresolved concern because a worker, provider or official changes roles. Care Continuity is exploring a free public-interest service to help people keep track of evidence, accepted responsibility and real outcomes.
It is intended to be useful across disability and mental health support, and at the points where care meets hospitals, emergency services, police and legal decision-making. These are proposed uses, not operating integrations.
People with disability and people with mental health support needs must have meaningful authority in its design and governance. Families and workers contribute essential knowledge; neither a family account nor an institutional record is automatically treated as the whole truth.
What exists: this public website and an invented handover exercise. What is not established: an independent host, a funded response team, secure case intake or evidence that the service improves real outcomes.