Section 1.3
The IG is inconsistently applying the list of workflows defined in 1.3 to the subsequent chapters "Identity Assurance", "Patient Matching" and "Digital Identity". A canonical formulation of protocol exchange (FHIR) should be described for each of the flow in which the conveyed PII and/or digital identifiers is defined. The different flows also will help to differentiate the authentication of flows from the authentication of the data and the authorization/consent provided for the responder. Note: this is different for B2C and B2B.
Consider separating the topic of Identity Management to a different artifact that can have different timelines for adding specificity. This would allow to align with various ongoing initiatives like TEFCA and the CARIN/HHS Patient-centric Digital Identity Federation POC.

• Clarify no match when authenticating patient (sub-topic: is B2B mediated considered “authenticating patient”?)