Choonok Company Publishes the “VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution,” Defining the Principles and Limits of Clinical AI for Small Animal Practice

The VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution

by CHOONOK Company

(This content was created with the assistance of AI.)

CHOONOK Company has published the VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution, outlining the principles and limitations that guide its AI-powered clinical decision support system for small animal practice.

The Constitution is not a document created to showcase AI performance. Instead, it was developed to clearly define how clinical AI should be designed for real-world veterinary practice—and what it should not do.

Errors in clinical AI carry a different level of consequence from those of a general-purpose chatbot. If an unverified drug dosage or incorrect clinical information is presented in a convincing manner, the impact may extend beyond inconvenience and directly affect patient safety.

For this reason, CHOONOK Company believes that trust in clinical AI should not be explained solely through accuracy scores or benchmark results. The principles and boundaries the system is designed to follow should also be made clear.

Four Commitments VETFR.AI.DAY Is Designed to Follow

The VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution is built around four core commitments.

First, minimize hallucinations. VETFR.AI.DAY is designed to continuously reduce the risk of presenting nonexistent evidence or unverified numerical information as fact.

Second, do not agree without evidence. The system is not designed to simply align with the answer a user wants to hear. When a veterinarian’s hypothesis conflicts with available evidence, VETFR.AI.DAY is intended to surface contradictory evidence and alternative possibilities.

Third, keep the final decision with the vet. VETFR.AI.DAY does not replace diagnosis or treatment decisions. Instead, it presents possible options together with the supporting evidence and relevant trade-offs.

Fourth, be clear when the evidence is insufficient. When reliable evidence is lacking or a confident answer cannot be supported, the system is designed to acknowledge uncertainty rather than generate a plausible-sounding response.

These four commitments are not independent principles. A system must be able to say “I don’t know” in order to reduce unsupported answers, and it must avoid automatically reinforcing a user’s assumptions in order to meaningfully support clinical judgment.

Clinical AI with Traceable Evidence

Alongside these four commitments, the Constitution identifies traceability of evidence as a key principle.

VETFR.AI.DAY aims to provide the sources behind its clinical responses so that veterinarians can directly review the literature and knowledge supporting an answer.

The system is being designed to distinguish between information based on established standards, findings derived from individual studies, and reasoning based on limited evidence—so that different levels of evidence are not treated as though they carry equal weight.

The Constitution also incorporates the concept of Spectrum of Care. Rather than presenting a single ideal treatment as the only correct answer, VETFR.AI.DAY aims to present practical alternatives that take into account the patient’s condition, the owner’s circumstances, and the resources available at the hospital.

This reflects a core principle of the Constitution: determining which option is most appropriate for an individual patient remains the responsibility of the veterinarian who examines the patient and communicates directly with the owner.

The Constitution Also Defines What VETFR.AI.DAY Will Not Do

The VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution outlines not only the principles the system is designed to follow, but also the actions it deliberately avoids.

VETFR.AI.DAY does not replace direct veterinary examination or clinical judgment. It does not present probabilistic estimates as definitive diagnoses, nor does it provide overly optimistic prognoses without sufficient evidence.

It is not designed to give direct diagnostic or treatment recommendations to pet owners, and it does not push users toward a specific course of action in irreversible decisions such as euthanasia.

These boundaries are not simply the result of technical limitations. They are intentional choices designed to clarify the lines that a clinical decision support system should not cross.

Read the Full VETFR.AI.DAY Constitution