Summary

Sam clarified that Follow_up_Treatment_from_Intake__c is semi-reliable for providers but messy because it is early-stage intake information. I validated live samples and updated the Litify treatment roadmap plan and session logs accordingly.

Live validation

The field does contain provider clues such as ExactaCare, Aptiva, Chambers, Clarksville Spine, Norton Neuro, and specific PT or chiropractic references. It also contains non-confirmed language such as Will need recommendation, I will give Aptiva, Recommended ExactaCare, will see PCP and go from there, unsure, and will let us know.

Decision recorded

Follow_up_Treatment_from_Intake__c should be a last-resort clue only. It should not override Current Treatment Plan, treatment-call notes, Requests tab, structured provider rows, selected Primary Treatment Provider, or later treatment updates.

Use it only when stronger sources are blank or when later sources confirm the same provider. If it only describes a recommendation or possible future care, skip automation or mark it low confidence.

Files updated

Reason for ending

The source hierarchy was updated and verified in the local docs. No Litify configuration was changed.

Suggested next steps

A next agent can continue from the treatment roadmap plan and keep intake follow-up at the bottom of the migration/source hierarchy. This is especially important when building automation, because intake notes can show what was recommended before the client actually treated.

QA options

A. Keep intake follow-up as last-resort evidence only. Recommended because it is useful but too early-stage to be authoritative.

B. Build a report showing where intake follow-up conflicts with later treatment sources. Useful for data cleanup before automation.

C. Ignore intake follow-up entirely in automation. Useful if the team wants the safest possible build even if it misses some provider clues.