Purpose
MMIO’s governance process is designed to prevent three common failures: presenting general wellbeing ideas as treatment, turning adjacent research into unsupported product claims, and releasing technically polished features without adequate safety, privacy or accessibility review.
Evidence levels
| Level | Meaning | Permitted presentation |
|---|---|---|
| Established guidance or repeated evidence | Supported across authoritative guidance, multiple good-quality studies or mature practice. | May inform structure, with population and limitation stated. |
| Supported technique adapted cautiously | The underlying technique has support, but the MMIO format or context has not been directly evaluated. | “Evidence-informed” with no claim that the product itself is proven. |
| Promising product pattern | Plausible and supported by early, indirect or implementation evidence. | Presented as optional and evaluated before stronger claims. |
| Experimental or unsupported | Insufficient basis, unacceptable risk or a claim requiring direct evidence. | Not released broadly without a protocol, review, consent and rollback plan. |
Release lifecycle
- Define the job: identify what the user is trying to do and what the product must not imply.
- Review sources: use authoritative guidance, systematic reviews and primary research appropriate to the question.
- Translate with restraint: preserve uncertainty, contraindications and service boundaries.
- Review risk: assess content, privacy, security, accessibility, vulnerable-user, professional-boundary and consumer-law risks.
- Test the implementation: verify the code, interactions, mobile experience, local-data claims, access controls and failure states.
- Approve and version: record owner, reviewer, sources, date, change and rollback position.
- Listen and correct: route adverse feedback, incidents and complaints into documented review.
Claims control
MMIO may describe the intended function and evidence-informed design of a product. It must not say or imply that MMIO diagnoses, cures, treats, prevents relapse, reduces suicide, replaces therapy or achieves a clinical effect unless that specific claim is supported by appropriate evidence for the finished product and is lawful.
Testimonials cannot prove general efficacy and must not be fabricated, selectively edited into a misleading impression, or used to make a therapeutic claim that MMIO could not make directly.
Content review record
Each substantive wellbeing module should have:
- a clear owner and intended audience;
- a source register and evidence-strength note;
- service-boundary and safety review;
- accessibility and plain-language review;
- publication and next-review dates;
- a version history and adverse-feedback route;
- conflict-of-interest disclosure for named reviewers;
- a record of what changed and why.
Privacy and measurement
Product improvement should prefer reliability, completion of intended actions and privacy-preserving aggregate measures. Private wellbeing writing must not be collected merely because it is convenient to analyse. New analytics, AI or personalisation require a separate necessity, proportionality, security, privacy and bias assessment.
External review
MMIO does not claim that nurses, clinicians, advisers or boards currently review or approve its content unless a genuine review has occurred and can be documented. As the service, claims and customer base grow, MMIO should obtain appropriately scoped Australian legal, privacy, accessibility or registered-health-professional review where the issue requires it. Any completed review must be described honestly; it is not regulator approval, clinical accreditation or continuing oversight unless that status has actually been awarded.
Version
Governance summary version 2026.09.1, effective 6 September 2026. Questions: info@mymindisok.com.