Source separation is the starting control
Each account should retain role, context and timing. A partner’s current observation and a parent’s childhood memory answer different questions and should not be treated as interchangeable votes.
Clinician-controlled evidence
Evidence provenance
When accounts disagree, keep the disagreement visible long enough to learn from it
Multi-informant evidence becomes unsafe when sources are blended into one confident narrative. SheldonDx keeps accounts attributable so clinicians can examine context, observation opportunity, relationship and masking before deciding what the difference means.
A question for your current workflow
Does your current report show who observed what—or only the consensus paragraph produced at the end?
Absence is not a negative score
An unavailable, unsafe or unreliable informant creates an evidence limitation. The workflow can record alternatives without pretending that missing evidence disproves a developmental pattern.
Clinicians arbitrate the meaning
SheldonDx can surface alignment and conflict. It must not rank an informant’s credibility or turn majority agreement into diagnosis.
Questions worth answering before a demo
Does every assessment require an informant?
Requirements differ by condition, instrument, service and case. The clinician decides what evidence is needed and how limitations affect the conclusion.
Does SheldonDx choose which informant is correct?
No. It preserves source-linked accounts and supports clinician review; it does not automate credibility judgements.
Review disagreement as evidence
See a source-separated example before deciding whether the workflow fits your practice.
Book a multi-informant walkthrough