← Selected work
02 / 1.TALK AI AGENT · 0 → 1

02 / 1.TALK AI AGENT · 0 → 1

Designing clinic AI for adoption: 432 clinics in eight months.

I defined AI behavior boundaries, human handoff, and repeatable QA so clinics could control how AI joined their workflow. Eight months after launch, the product had 432 clinics onboarded and 54 paid subscriptions.

Design Lead (hands-on) · 0 → 1Development: May 2025 · Launch: Jan 2026
AI + HUMAN CONTROL
CONTROL MODEL ILLUSTRATION · NOT A PRODUCT SCREENSHOT
MY ROLE
Design Lead (hands-on) · 0 → 1
MY OWNERSHIP
Research, AI behavior rules, product UI, and AI test management.
AT A GLANCE
432clinics onboarded
54paid subscriptions

01 THE CONTEXT

An answer is only useful if a clinic can trust it.

Clinics wanted help with repetitive questions, but could not risk incorrect fees, false promises, or missed complaints. The design challenge was making AI useful while keeping staff in control.

THE DESIGN LENS

Trust starts with knowing the limits.

02 FAILURE & TURNING POINT

A false promise changed how I defined AI boundaries.

The initial rules limited what AI could discuss, but did not fully limit the actions it could promise. That gap surfaced shortly after launch.

  1. Where it broke down

    AI told a patient it would pass their request to the front desk, but the product had no notification mechanism. The patient believed the clinic knew; staff received nothing.

  2. What revealed the gap

    Comparing the reply with product capabilities exposed the gap: an empathetic answer had promised follow-through the system could not deliver.

  3. What I changed

    I added a hard rule against promising unsupported actions, with clear signals on conversations that needed staff attention so the front desk could recognize handoff needs.

What I learned

Review whether a promise can be fulfilled. Updated rules still need expected replies, failure records, and repeat testing to check their behavior.

THE TRADEOFFHelpful-sounding replies were less important than reliable expectations. Higher-risk conversations needed a visible route back to a person.

Explore the supporting design
Before-and-after illustration comparing a false notification promise with a visible human handoff
A specific failure changed both the response rules and the handoff expectation.

03 THE SOLUTION

Give clinics control they already understand.

I separated control into a global switch, a per-conversation switch, and a human handoff signal. I also translated prompts into familiar settings: assistant identity, reply style, and clinic-specific instructions.

01

Global control

Let each clinic decide when AI participates in its workflow.

02

Conversation control

Handle exceptions individually with a per-conversation switch.

03

Human handoff

Make the need for staff attention explicit in sensitive conversations.

Illustration of assistant identity, tone, instructions, knowledge, and escalation settings
Explain the AI as a front-desk assistant to configure, rather than a prompt to engineer.View full size

THE TRADEOFFClinics operate differently. A single automation setting could not cover every schedule, exception, or sensitive conversation.

04 MAKING IT WORK

Turn one failure into a repeatable test.

Because AI replies vary, one successful test is not a stable acceptance standard. I built an eight-category test management system with QA, recording expected and actual replies, failure reasons, and retest status.

THE TRADEOFF

A repeatable review process takes ongoing effort. It makes behavior changes observable instead of relying on a one-time sign-off.

  1. 01

    Define expectations

    Group cases into eight categories and specify the expected behavior.

  2. 02

    Find the gap

    Compare actual replies and record failure reasons and risks.

  3. 03

    Adjust and retest

    Revise the rules and track whether the correction holds.

Explore the process and collaboration
Project illustration of structured AI test cases and their retest status
Turn scattered reply issues into cases the team can fix and retest.

05 IMPACT & OWNERSHIP

What changed through this work?

432clinics onboarded
54paid subscriptions
8 monthssince launch

Within eight months of launch, the product reached 432 clinics across Taiwan and Japan, with 54 paid subscriptions. The behavior specification and testing process also supported onboarding the first 16 Japanese clinics.

Product-level results, reported through August 2026. My ownership: behavior boundaries, risk layering, control architecture, and the testing loop.

A CLOSER LOOK

A little more context.

MVP scope & research

The MVP answered published clinic information and identified available sessions, but did not complete bookings. Three internal testing rounds and a two-month closed beta with nearly 30 clinics informed the risk model: answer low-risk questions, constrain medium-risk wording, and hand high-risk conversations to staff.

Team & measurement context

One PM, one QA, one frontend engineer, two backend engineers, and one designer (me). Development began in May 2025; the product launched in January 2026. Adoption and paid subscriptions are product-level results reported through August 2026.

HIRING A SENIOR OR LEAD PRODUCT DESIGNER?

If this is the kind of work your team needs, let’s talk.

Based in Taipei (GMT+8), open to relocating for the right role. The form reaches me directly.