We don't use human verification for the bulk of tests, just the last pass. In the healthcare space, you absolutely need to have a few physicians review the fina

We don't use human verification for the bulk of tests, just the last pass. In the healthcare space, you absolutely need to have a few physicians review the final results of a prediction model to make sure they "feel" consistent with prior releases. This even applies for more trivial changes like switching from a bar graph to a line graph. So for both legal and practical reasons, a few physicians will need to give a go ahead. I'm sure you can imagine the legal reasons. A lot of the practical reasons stem from fears that some unknown unknown might trigger a failure that won't be caught by the quality metrics and upstream tests. Anyone in software knows this happens a lot more often than we'd like to admit. Given people will die if the software doesn't work and people will be sued if people die, it would be both irresponsible and risky to depend entirely on an automated test suite for the pre-deployment delivery. Then add a requirement to have a third-party audit the code for HIPAA compliance and security testing, and you can kiss your CD good bye. Even if you want to act like you don't, you still have a milestone, a release date, the evil poison that brings agile thinking to its knees.