Yes — use it all. That opening line is the strongest of the three openers, so leading with it is the right call. Here's the full post with that title on top and the TRAIGA reference broadened the way you asked, ready to copy-paste:
Your AI passed its compliance review in March. It's June. Is it still the same AI?
A patient sees her doctor on Monday. Wednesday, she calls back about her new medication — a side effect, a question about the dose.
The good experience: your AI assistant already knows who she is. It picks up where the visit left off. She doesn't re-explain her history, her medication, her allergy list. Seamless.
But pause on what just happened underneath that seamless moment. Her clinical history, her active prescriptions, her identity — that protected health information was carried forward, held in context, and very likely passed between systems and between AI models to make the conversation feel effortless.
Every one of those handoffs is a decision a regulator cares about:
→ Was only the minimum necessary PHI carried forward — or the whole chart? → Did the patient's context cross into a model covered by a different BAA, with different retention rules? → When the AI recalled her medication, did it recall it accurately — or confidently invent a detail? → Did she get information that quietly drifted toward clinical advice your policy says it shouldn't give?
Here's the uncomfortable part: you may have validated all of this at launch. But AI drifts.
→ The model changes — your vendor ships an update, and the system that passed review isn't the one running today. → The prompts evolve — a tweak to improve the experience quietly weakens a PHI safeguard. → The inputs shift — real patients don't talk like your test cases. → The rules move — new framework, new health-system requirement, or new state AI law (Texas's TRAIGA is live as of January 2026 — or any of the new state AI regulations now taking effect), and nothing's been re-checked against any of it.
A point-in-time compliance report is a photograph. Your AI is a video.
That's the gap ARIA closes. We continuously test whether your AI actually follows your policy — minimum-necessary PHI, refusal behavior, hallucination, BAA boundaries — and hand you the evidence to prove it on the day a health system's security team asks. Not a binder. Not a promise. Behavioral proof, refreshed continuously.
Responsible AI, Verified.
If you're building patient-facing AI: when procurement asks you to prove your model still behaves the way it did at launch — what do you show them?
(First in a short series — I'll unpack each drift vector in the posts ahead.)
The bracketed broadening does exactly what you wanted: the reader who knows TRAIGA gets the specific, credible anchor, and the reader who doesn't gets "oh, new rules — I get that" without feeling talked down to. Both land on the same takeaway, which is the point.
Good luck with it — this is a sharp piece of positioning, and it's entirely your own.
Aggi Technologies LLC helps regulated organizations govern AI behavior with ARIA and ARIA Shape B. Talk to us →
Written for people who have to make decisions about AI. What happened, why it matters, and what to do about it — with every source linked so you can check the work yourself.
Or read it on LinkedIn →