Panel prep · Draft question inputs

Loaded Questions for the Board Panel

These are inputs for the draft question list Nancy and Susie are already refining, built from the June 2026 planning call and the verified figures. Spoken-length, slide-free, per Nancy’s format guidance.

Shur Creative Partners · Prepared for the American Heart Association board panel · ShurAI

Group One

The Decade the Answer Faded

Between 2009 and 2019 the share of women who could name heart disease as their leading cause of death fell from 65 percent to 44 percent — the loudest decade of health content in history. What was being said in those ten years, and by whom, that we were leaving unsaid?

Verified in Cushman et al., Circulation 2020 — steepest among women 25-34 (down 81 percent), Hispanic women (down 86 percent), and Black women (down 69 percent); the “64 down to 40” we used on the huddle corrects to these figures. The fall concentrated exactly where voices paid in engagement and attention dominate.

From here, panelists can name who filled those ten years and with what incentives, and the board hears the cost of the current position before anyone asks it to move.

Every member of this board accepts a 75-percent answer from their own cardiologist because of who is answering. What stops the institution from saying “75 percent sure, and here is why” under its own name?

Graded certainty is already standard clinical practice among the board’s own physicians — the register exists; only the institutional brand for it is missing.

From here, the science leaders can say what that brand would require, placing themselves on the certainty-and-control continuum without anyone framing it as a test.

Group Two

The Exposure Already on the Books

A physician on our own board found six material errors in the influencer we most often amplify. What would an owned voice in that format have to look like for the borrowing to stop?

Dr. Jen Ashton’s six-error finding — the brand is already exposed in the influencer format, so the choice runs between a controlled voice and a rented one — the brand is in the format either way.

From here, the board can picture its own experts on camera, and the most cautious member can see that holding still keeps a voice in circulation the institution can neither correct nor retract.

This board reads quantified risk on everything else it governs through the Diligent book. Which line already in that book is the right peer for misinformation exposure — and does 70,000 engagements in a single day land above or below that peer’s trigger threshold?

The 70,000 figure has never stood next to a risk this board already prices, so it floats without a scale.

From here, the calibration happens in the room: naming the peer line gives the number a denominator for the first time, and the above-or-below answer tells the most cautious member whether the exposure belongs in a footnote or on the standing agenda.

Group Three

Decisions the Board Can Sign in the Room

Nancy’s raw-milk answer this week was competent and unsystematized — we know that already. So: do we commission a 30-day inventory of every informal expert answer this institution gives, and which of those answers would this board license under the graded voice first?

Expert judgment already flows daily without a system underneath it — the raw-milk answer was improvised from the top of Nancy’s head, and answered well.

That fact converts into two signable decisions: whether to commission the inventory, and the first slate of answers licensed under the graded voice.

An interim read on calcium findings from mammograms is already a draft decision. If it ships this quarter: what confidence grade goes on it, whose name owns it, and what revision schedule is this board willing to sign?

AI tools already report coronary-calcium findings from routine mammograms, and the women and doctors receiving those numbers have no guidance for what they mean — the interim read is proposed; three parameters stay open: the shipping grade, the named owner, and the revision cadence.

Settling them in the room turns the panel’s most concrete example into a governed commitment.

If we could staff only two of the surfaces where Americans already stand — the gym door, the hospital lobby, the wearable alert, the chatbot answer — which two do we choose for the next twelve months, and what existing spend pays for the packaging?

The expensive part — verified content — is already built and already paid for, which makes distribution a packaging task.

From here, the conversation goes to the surface-priority tradeoff and the funding source, the two decisions that stay with the board.

We have heard that the wait-for-the-AHA deferral only survives if our answer arrives within days. What does this board fund, and what does it stop doing, to put a days-level answer machine inside this budget cycle?

The deferral habit is the prize money cannot buy, and it lives or dies on response latency — the metric that converts a century of trust into daily relevance.

Pricing the rapid-response expert-opinion enterprise inside the current cycle means the panel’s momentum leaves the room as a funding allocation and a stop-doing decision.

Method note. Questions draw on the June 2026 planning-call transcript and the Slack huddle that followed it, the verified statistics ledger for the engagement (the awareness-decline figures trace to Cushman et al., Circulation 2020), and the panel positioning brief already in circulation. We kept the wording spoken-length and slide-free per Nancy’s format guidance.