The public LEC AI site shows how submission, completeness review, expert assessment, meetings, follow-up and archiving can be connected in one digital process. In the demonstration route, document versions do not overwrite one another, material actions receive an author and timestamp, and conflicts of interest, quorum and deadlines become visible before a meeting. Every public example is labelled synthetic. The confirmed stage is an informational demo and a limited closed server pilot. The site explicitly states that the system has not been commissioned as a production personal-data system and is not intended for medical records, patient source data or real research documents. The practical purpose is to reduce the risk of losing versions, deadlines and responsibility across email and folders while preserving traceability. The platform may issue reminders or block an unsafe route, but authorised committee members retain ethical assessment and decision-making. Each committee configures its own rules and deadlines. Time savings, error reduction and usability remain hypotheses until independently piloted and measured.
Project review
LEC AI: committee decisions in a traceable digital process
The public LEC AI site shows how submission, completeness review, expert assessment, meetings, follow-up and archiving can be connected in one digital process. In the demonstration route, document versions do not overwrite one another, material actions receive an author and timestamp, and conflicts of interest, quorum and deadlines become visible before a meeting. Every public example is labelled synthetic. The confirmed stage is an informational demo and a limited closed server pilot. The site explicitly states that the system has not been commissioned as a production personal-data system and is not intended for medical records, patient source data or real research documents. The practical purpose is to reduce the risk of losing versions, deadlines and responsibility across email and folders while preserving traceability. The platform may issue reminders or block an unsafe route, but authorised committee members retain ethical assessment and decision-making. Each committee configures its own rules and deadlines. Time savings, error reduction and usability remain hypotheses until independently piloted and measured.