Section 2.5.2 describes the workflow for Use Cases 1 and 2, while Section 2.6.2 describes the workflow for Use Case 3. These are substantially similar but not fully aligned. In some cases, additional clarification and/or alignment might be helpful to readers.

1) 2.5.2 indicates that "If the patient is not a resident of a catchment area, the HDEA stops all activity regarding this patient." but this same sentence is not in 2.6.2 Does that mean that for Use Case three, all patients with an ARI diagnosis are further tracked and reported on? Is there any filtering based on catchment area? Please clarify.

2) Figure 2.3 suggests that Use Case one results in a submission of a FHIR bundle of data based on the positive test result (and thus has an arrow between the "Evaluate decision logic" box and the "Query for patient-level encounter data" box). this arrow is missing in Figure 2.4. Does that mean that the initial diagnosis of an ARi does not lead to an immediate submission? If so, what purpose do these first few steps serve? Why not just wait until notification of discharge and then see if the individual had an ARI diagnosis. Please clarify the utility of the initial step for the Use Case 3 Workflow

3) Both 2.5.2 and 2.6.2 state "The HDEA then regularly monitors the patient's record until discharge occurs." but it's not clear how that happens. Is the HDEA polling the EHR? The diagram suggests a proactive notification (maybe an ADT^A03 message) from the EHR but this is not consistent with the HDEA regularly monitoring the patient record. Please clary what is meant by "regularly monitors" and how that is accomplished.

Note that Use Cases 4 and 5 should be aligned as well.