LLM Judges Verify Presence, Not Absence: Omission Blindness in AI Clinical Notes and What Recovers It

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.

CARE: A Conformal Safety Layer for Medical Summarization

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical summarization, but their outputs can omit medically important information and introduce unsupported claims. Existing error-detection methods produce heuristic or uncalibrated scores, providing no formal control over missed errors and no principled way to trade off safety against clinician review burden. We introduce Conformal Assessment for Risk Evaluation (CARE), a post-hoc, model-agnostic safety layer that uses conformal risk control to overlay calibrated omission and hallucination flags onto summaries from any LLM without retraining. CARE provides finite-sample, distribution-free guarantees through two controllers: a hallucination controller that bounds the probability of a document containing any unflagged hallucinated sentence, and an omission controller that bounds the expected fraction of important omissions not surfaced for review. Unlike hallucination detection, omissions depend jointly on whether a source sentence is important and whether it is covered by the summary. We show that calibrating only one dimension can violate the target risk bound, while marginal decompositions remain valid but overly conservative. By jointly calibrating over the full $(τ,γ)$ threshold space, CARE preserves formal guarantees while surfacing up to 5$\times$ fewer sentences than alternative calibrated baselines. Across five medical summarization tasks, CARE satisfies the target risk bound at $α= 0.15$ with 95% confidence across 100 calibration/test resplits, using only ~100 labeled documents per domain. In a preliminary clinician study (75 document reviews), calibrated flags improved omission detection by 28.6 percentage points on average. These results show that sentence-level safety guarantees are feasible for LLM-assisted medical summarization and offer a tunable mechanism for balancing residual risk and review effort.