Preparing books for people with visual impairment made me interested in the gap between information existing and information arriving in a form someone can read and use. Hanyak-Eum carried that concern into a service proposal about checking information before taking medicines or related products. I wanted to explore how someone could bring scattered information together and work out what to ask a professional.
In 2026, I prepared an application, planning document and presentation images for the idea-planning category of a food-and-drug public-data and AI competition. The material I can account for is that proposal package, not a confirmed entry outcome, award or product launch.
Leaving a question rather than supplying a verdict
Putting information about herbal medicines, other medicines and health-functional foods in one interface could make it look as though the service also decided whether they could be taken together. I instead defined its purpose around matters to check with a professional and questions to bring to a consultation. “Needs checking” was neither permission to take something nor a judgement that it was dangerous.
I wanted simpler language to remain separate from a medical conclusion. Filling a gap in the source with a plausible sentence can make an answer easier to read while creating unjustified confidence. Where support was missing, the proposal called for seeking professional clarification instead of completing the answer.
An accessible format still needed testing
Plain language and voice guidance were part of the concept. Choosing those formats did not establish that someone understood them. Recognising the entered product, understanding the guidance and finding the resulting questions useful in a consultation remained things to test later. My book-input volunteering could not stand in for a user test of this service.
Professional consultation and review of the information were also prospective work. I cannot describe the proposal as a service with an already reviewed safety resource or an AI system proven to prevent errors. The plan separated those requirements from the work completed on scope and wording.
What remains a proposal
The completed work is the proposed service scope, language and explanatory material. Detailed screens and unreleased feature design stay outside this account; the public description remains centred on preparing questions to check before a consultation.
As of 7 September 2026, the submission outcome, user validation, public distribution and revenue remain unverified. Taking the proposal further would mean testing the whole path, from recognising an entered product to understanding the guidance and using the questions in a consultation.