# DenQAI: policy mechanism register

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

Which policy mechanism is current, operational, and relevant to a specific owner decision?

**Who:** Policy evidence owner and qualified reviewer

**Records:** Controlling authority; official implementation records; jurisdiction/effective dates; source registry and review schedule.

## Complete the file

1. Use one policy_id for each mechanism and verify authority, jurisdiction, and current_status.
2. Separate reviewed_at from effective_or_operational_date and state the proposed mechanism_chain.
3. Specify observable_change, minimum_measures, claim_ceiling, and next_review without assuming the outcome.

## Definitions

- **Mechanism chain:** Proposed sequence connecting a policy to observable behavior or outcomes.
- **Operational date:** Date the necessary implementation event actually took effect.
- **Claim ceiling:** Limit on conclusions supported by the recorded evidence.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: POL-01 records fee-schedule publication; the owner-decision question is whether the exact applicable rate can now be verified, not whether payment rose.

## Review and next action

Update the supporting source and collect implementation evidence before extending the claim.

Existing rows require current-source rechecking. Publication, legislation, or adoption alone does not demonstrate a practice outcome.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/policy)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s policy mechanism register. My question is: Which policy mechanism is current, operational, and relevant to a specific owner decision? Explain these terms in plain language: Mechanism chain, Operational date, Claim ceiling. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Controlling authority; official implementation records; jurisdiction/effective dates; source registry and review schedule. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: Existing rows require current-source rechecking. Publication, legislation, or adoption alone does not demonstrate a practice outcome. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Update the supporting source and collect implementation evidence before extending the claim.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s policy mechanism register against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Use one policy_id for each mechanism and verify authority, jurisdiction, and current_status. Separate reviewed_at from effective_or_operational_date and state the proposed mechanism_chain. Specify observable_change, minimum_measures, claim_ceiling, and next_review without assuming the outcome. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: Existing rows require current-source rechecking. Publication, legislation, or adoption alone does not demonstrate a practice outcome. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.