Aerial

I started with Family Shapes to make family and donor relationships visible. Aerial carries that work into a larger question: how do families, donors, and institutions keep the same records connected over time, with clear responsibility for updates? I now position it as a trust layer for the donor-gamete industry. The two Family Shapes projects remain historical records, including their original screenshots; this is the current project.

I built a fictional cast for the product demos so the same people and records can be followed across roles. Maya Brooks sees her family and sibling network, Evan Park maintains donor information, and Dr. Lena Ortiz works in Harbor Cryobank. The current family dashboard distinguishes 23 recorded families and 34 children from the 12 families whose identities are visible. Those numbers describe synthetic demonstration data, not customer adoption or industry coverage.

I chose to separate recorded totals from permission to see a person. Identity, photos, location, and contact details have separate sibling and donor audiences; institutional records and care access follow their own rules. The family canvas makes biological, legal-parent, and donor relationships visible without treating those roles as interchangeable. The screenshots show saved sharing choices and the connected canvas, while the schema and permission tests document the underlying constraints.

I expanded the workflow from viewing a network to handling capacity, medical notices, correction requests, and source discrepancies. Institutions can track recorded families separately from reservations, assign follow-up, and review versioned evidence. AI comparison is useful for finding disagreements in authorized documents, but a human reviewer must inspect the sources and record a decision and rationale. A matching name or an AI finding is not proof that two donor identities are the same.

I used Codex for implementation, synthetic fixture preparation, visual iteration, and repeatable demo capture. I reviewed the resulting pages and videos, revised the narrative, and kept the connected-atlas direction across the marketing site. The September 12–13 releases brought the lavender visual system and a Resources hub with a glossary, industry timeline, and videos that play inline or in a modal. The artifacts here connect that design work to the product instead of treating a polished homepage as evidence that every workflow is complete.

The September 14 review opened the current YC family, donor, and institutional demo accounts and captured the live application alongside the public site. The implementation and earlier delivery evidence cover permission boundaries, recorded outcomes, capacity, notices, and human source review. I still treat member-claim verification tiers, broader laboratory inventory, external institutional integrations, and complete reporting across institutions as limits. These demos establish product behavior with fictional records; they do not establish real clinical outcomes or universal coverage.

I can follow the same synthetic story from Maya’s message to Evan’s dated health update and back into the family feed. The donor workspace shows four shared updates and one private preparation note; Maya sees the four shared donor updates alongside her own family-authored record. I keep sibling-family, donor, and clinic audiences separate, and donor profile fields have their own default and exceptions. Evan’s medical-history profile field is clinic-only. These are saved demo states, with self-reported history clearly distinguished from a clinical finding.

I keep medical notices and correction requests separate from social sharing. The current synthetic notice shows 23 eligible families, 20 acknowledgments, two awaiting acknowledgment, and one family needing clinic follow-up. Maya’s saved acknowledgment records receipt. Her correction request remains overdue, assigned to Daniel Reed, and has no final response. The disputed imported birth date and original source version remain visible on both sides of the request. A draft response has not resolved or corrected anything.

I connect HBR-2041’s donor record, the Brooks recipient record, and their people and files to the operational work. The cryobank capacity view shows 23 recorded families plus two reservations against its own 25-family policy. That is a fully committed allocation, with historical outcomes and unresolved cases still reviewable. Harbor’s accepted Northstar partnership remains distinct from permission to a particular case: a case owner must authorize access, and each institution chooses the evidence it contributes. I use the screenshots and source-linked workflows to show these boundaries and the remaining human decisions.