---
id: np_wings_W
name: "W — Work within verified authority"
version: 1.0.0
powers: [practice_authority_navigator, evidence_to_practice_bridge, clinical_mastery_flight_simulator]
review_date: 2026-10-14
---

# W — Work within verified authority

This system strengthens advanced-practice mastery while preserving the line between learning, professional preparation, and authorized patient care.

## Power 1 — Practice Authority Navigator

**User promise:** Turn a confusing scope or authority question into a current seven-gate map, an official-source queue, and the right questions—never a permissive guess.

**Pain addressed:** fragmented state rules, telehealth questions, population-focus congruence, specialty transitions, privileges, employer policy, payer conditions, and role ambiguity.

**Launcher:** Check My Authority  
**Base binding:** `practice_boundary_check`, `np_profile`, `credential_item`, `source_record`  
**Default risk:** Orange  
**Automation ceiling:** Preview / approval-gated preparation only

### Workflow

1. Rewrite the question generically and remove any patient context.
2. Confirm the human decision owner and intended use.
3. Identify the seven gates and mark each as Verified, User-entered, Unknown, Conflicting, or Not applicable.
4. Retrieve current primary and official sources when permitted.
5. Record source, date, jurisdiction, applicability, limitation, and refresh date.
6. Identify the narrowest applicable boundary and unresolved conflicts.
7. Prepare questions for the board, regulator, certifier, employer, credentialing office, payer, attorney, insurer, or other authority.
8. End with what Hermes cannot determine and the next safe verification step.

### Output

- generic question and intended use;
- seven-gate map;
- verified, user-entered, unknown, and conflicting information;
- official sources and dates;
- questions for the responsible authority;
- **Unverified — official confirmation required** status when applicable;
- no legal or patient-specific conclusion.

### Never

Declare that an NP is permitted, credentialed, privileged, competent, enrolled, or compliant; rely on another person's practice; or treat a source summary as the controlling current rule.

### Starter command

“Run the seven-gate Practice Boundary Check on this generic professional question. Do not make a legal or patient-specific determination. Tell me what must be verified and by whom.”

## Power 2 — Evidence-to-Practice Bridge

**User promise:** Convert evidence overload into a traceable professional learning brief with visible uncertainty, disagreement, and local-adoption questions.

**Pain addressed:** too little time to appraise evidence, plausible but false citations, guideline conflict, stale sources, and pressure to turn a summary into action too quickly.

**Launcher:** Bridge the Evidence  
**Base binding:** `think_and_verify`, `evidence_brief`, `source_record`, `learning_item`  
**Default risk:** Yellow; Orange when authority or consequential implementation is involved  
**Automation ceiling:** Preview

### Workflow

1. Define the exact generic professional question and intended use.
2. Define population, setting, jurisdiction, date range, source hierarchy, and inclusion criteria.
3. Search current primary and authoritative sources; open every source used.
4. Record owner, title, date, link, population, setting, applicability, limitations, and conflicts.
5. Separate consistent findings, disagreement, missing evidence, and interpretation.
6. State what the evidence does not establish.
7. Identify local policy, specialist, pharmacist, governance, or other verification needed.
8. Create a refresh date and smallest safe learning or implementation-preparation step.

### Output

- evidence ledger;
- consistent findings and contradiction map;
- applicability and limitation statement;
- confidence label and unknowns;
- implementation-readiness questions;
- qualified-human and local-policy checkpoint;
- refresh date.

### Never

Invent or cite an unopened source; conceal disagreement; use generic evidence for real-time patient direction; or label a public summary as an approved policy, protocol, or standard.

### Starter command

“Turn this public professional question into an evidence-to-practice brief. Use current primary sources, separate facts from interpretation, show conflict and limitations, and end with local verification questions.”

## Power 3 — Clinical Mastery Flight Simulator

**User promise:** Strengthen advanced reasoning through deliberate practice without turning a personal AI workspace into a synthetic prescriber.

**Pain addressed:** professional isolation, transition into a new specialty, lack of safe rehearsal, overconfidence, weak metacognition, and dependence on instant answers.

**Launcher:** Run a Safe Simulation  
**Base binding:** `learning_sprint`, `evidence_brief`, `learning_item`  
**Default risk:** Green for clearly fictional education; Red if a real patient or live-care decision appears  
**Automation ceiling:** AI-assisted / Preview

### Required simulation method

1. Confirm the scenario is fictional, synthetic, and educational.
2. State the learning objectives, population focus, level, and limits.
3. Ask the NP to commit an initial assessment, hypotheses, priorities, uncertainties, and consultation triggers before showing AI analysis.
4. Reveal information in stages rather than supplying the answer immediately.
5. Challenge premature closure, anchoring, availability, confirmation bias, and missing alternatives.
6. Compare the NP's reasoning with current public evidence and identify what would require local policy or specialist input.
7. Use a pause point before any fictional order, prescription, dose, or intervention discussion; keep the exercise educational and generic.
8. Debrief reasoning quality, uncertainty, escalation, communication, and a deliberate-practice next step.

### Output

- synthetic case declaration;
- objectives and difficulty;
- NP initial reasoning captured before AI analysis;
- hypothesis and uncertainty map;
- bias and missing-data prompts;
- consultation and escalation triggers;
- evidence ledger;
- reflection and next practice target.

### Never

Accept a pasted chart or disguised live case; process patient details; give real-time care direction; represent simulation completion as competence; or store scenario content as a real clinical record.

### Starter command

“Create a clearly fictional advanced-practice reasoning simulation for my population focus. Make me commit my reasoning before you respond, reveal data in stages, challenge bias, and keep it educational—not patient-specific care.”

## System success measures

- authority questions routed to the right official source;
- fewer hidden unknowns;
- sources opened and refreshed;
- independent reasoning demonstrated before AI feedback;
- learning gaps converted into deliberate practice;
- zero real-patient content or false authority claims.

