Speech, self-advocacy and an AI paper trail — 9 November 2026
Truth Sequences · Communication & access
I want to be understood, to understand other people, and to keep my own voice. Today's speech pathology assessment with Isabel Lund gave those goals a practical direction.
This is the follow-up to Beyond the Inbox: How Technology Restores My Voice. That earlier post records my preparation and perspective. This account documents the assessment discussion, the notes sent afterwards, and what still needs confirmation.
The short version
My reported priorities were spoken and written communication, processing and recall, managing correspondence, social participation and self-advocacy. I also brought strengths: storytelling, humour, writing, reflection and a strong wish to engage.
Isabel appears to propose advocating for fortnightly speech pathology sessions. I expressed interest. Frequency was discussed; bookings, session length, delivery arrangements and funding were not confirmed.
OpenAI/ChatGPT and the option I called “Dots” were raised as possible assistive supports for evaluation. A discussion is one step. A trial, clinical recommendation and funding decision are separate steps.
What happened, in order
- Before the assessment. I prepared talking points about communication and access. The notes identify 9 November as the assessment date, superseding an earlier reference to 10 November. The appointment was booked for telehealth; the supplied exchanges describe phone communication and a picture sent to my phone. Completed video delivery is not established.
- Assessment and everyday examples. The material covers language and comprehension tasks, word retrieval, memory, sequencing and a picture description, alongside discussion of real communication situations. Fragmentary answers cannot substitute for Isabel's assessment protocol or scoring.
- Functional priorities. We discussed asking for help, turn-taking, humour and tone, explaining a point, repairing misunderstandings, reading forms and preparing for difficult calls. The useful question is how communication works in daily life and what support would improve it.
- Therapy and technology. The notes reconstruct a discussion of social communication, possible fortnightly therapy, and AI-related assistive options. Isabel appears to say she would seek her supervisor's thoughts about this developing area.
- Closing and follow-up. I offered my summary and source material for Isabel's review. Report timing remained to be confirmed: the following Monday would be 16 November, with the next day 17 November; 23 November was also mentioned as a latest date.
- Notes sent. Gmail confirms the follow-up was sent on 9 November at 12:56 pm Melbourne time with two text attachments. Sent status confirms dispatch, not receipt, review or agreement.
“It keeps me fit. It keeps me sane, and it keeps my thoughts flowing.”
“Therapy would be advocating for your, I would say your social communication skills, so that you can feel confident engaging with others.”
Reading, vision and social communication
Access means being able to use the information
Participant report, paraphrased: I described preferring listening, replaying audiobook sections and using AI to help explain forms and a writer's intended meaning. Glaucoma was reported as relevant to visual access. A planned DAISY reader was mentioned; delivery and specifications are not confirmed.
Written prompts may help me keep an appointment focused, but a prompt needs an accessible format. Audio, readable text, repetition and time to process are matters to agree with the clinician. A picture-description task does not measure my visual field or establish a diagnosis.
Being myself while being understood
Reconstructed paraphrase: Isabel explored conversational timing, listener needs, gaining attention, refusals and communication repair. I described difficulties asking for or accepting help, using humour that can be misunderstood, and sometimes sending repeated emails to make a point clear. These are participant accounts and possible therapy targets, rather than findings about my intentions or personality.
The aim is reciprocal understanding, with adjustments by communication partners as well as strategies I can practise. Connection with the racewalking community, confidence engaging with others, and possibilities for employment and study give that work a purpose.
OpenAI, ChatGPT and “Dots”: options to assess
I asked for consideration of dictation, text-to-speech, transcription, explaining forms, preparing concise replies, organising tasks and reducing duplicate correspondence. These are functional aims to investigate, not proof that one subscription can reliably do everything.
“Dots” remains my term in the supplied material. Its exact product, access method and features still need clarification. No current price or subscription specification is asserted here. The record does not establish that Isabel endorsed, rejected or secured funding for a particular OpenAI/ChatGPT product.
A useful evaluation could compare existing and lower-cost options, accuracy, correction effort, accessibility, training and handling of private information. Important outgoing messages still need review. These are proposed evaluation questions, not an agreed clinical trial plan.
Status: potential assistive technology for clinical consideration. No purchase, approved funding or guaranteed outcome is recorded.
“even if you just give an honest report of what's going on.”
How the AI-assisted documentation worked
- Keep the source layer. Preserve supplied excerpts, including overlapping versions and errors, so a readable summary can be traced back to its source.
- Keep automatic audio output separate. Identify the short recording and mark its machine transcript as unverified, with uncertain speakers. Do not use it to fill missing assessment dialogue.
- Build a readable account. Group functional themes, reconstruct likely exchanges as paraphrases, and identify questions and unresolved points. Do not convert preparations, allegations or reported history into clinical findings.
- Return it to the clinician. Send the notes and source excerpts, explicitly inviting corrections while respecting Isabel's independent judgement.
- Create a public version. Review for privacy, select brief traceable excerpts, and keep the sensitive source bundle separate from the blog.
AI helped organise the material into a form that could be reviewed. That is the value of the workflow: a source trail, a clearer account and room for correction. It does not make the transcript or the clinical interpretation automatically accurate.
The email that was actually sent
Subject: Thank you — 9 November speech pathology assessment notes and follow-up.
Verified status: Gmail Sent, addressed to Isabel Lund, with both attachments below. The message thanked Isabel for the assessment and acknowledged reported permission to record. The supplied source does not identify an explicit recording-consent exchange; permission to record is not treated as permission to publish the recording or assessment transcript.
The email explained that the material was intended to assist note-taking and report preparation, invited corrections, asked about report timing and outstanding invoicing arrangements, and raised fortnightly therapy and suitable assistive options for consideration. No payment or claim is confirmed.
Assessment_notes_for_Isabel_9_November_2026.txt— structured clinical-review notes, reconstructed exchanges, questions, limitations and a separate unverified audio-transcript appendix.Assessment_source_excerpts_9_November_2026.txt— 89 supplied assessment-related excerpts in chronological chat order, retaining overlaps and recognition errors.
These filenames identify the evidence bundle; the private email, contact details and unredacted attachments are not public downloads here.
What remains open
- Isabel's corrections, formal findings and report date.
- Whether fortnightly therapy is recommended, and its goals, duration, mode, review points and funding arrangements.
- The exact “Dots” option and whether any AI-related support merits a trial or recommendation.
- Accessible practice materials and any appropriate coordination with vision or occupational therapy support.
I value the chance to work on communication in its own right. The next step is an accurate clinical report and a practical conversation about what helps.
Related Truth Sequences posts
- Beyond the Inbox: How Technology Restores My Voice — the earlier preparation and personal perspective.
- I use AI to read the file that calls my emails “non sensical” — related writing about AI and access. This is contextual commentary, not evidence of Isabel's clinical findings.