Relay @GMC · a proposed use case
The GMC’s professional standards help people exercise judgement in circumstances that no rulebook could fully anticipate. Education develops that judgement, and experience continues to shape it.
As AI becomes part of how people learn, seek advice and make decisions, those standards need to remain within reach. Institutions also need ways to understand the difficulties people encounter and respond through their own responsibilities.
Relay is being developed to support that relationship. It carries guidance from human institutions into the AI tools people use, with its source clearly identified. People can also choose to bring questions and experience back to institutions able to respond.
The GMC example below is a proposed use case based on independently assembled public material. It does not imply GMC participation or endorsement.
The GMC regulates doctors, physician associates and anaesthesia associates. Its guidance provides principles that registrants apply through professional judgement. About the GMC.
Relay could provide an additional route for that guidance to reach registrants, alongside education, outreach and existing learning resources. Relevant material could be consulted repeatedly as questions arose, rather than depending entirely on someone knowing when and where to look.
The original guidance would remain accessible. Its wording would be distinguishable from any explanation generated by AI, so a registrant could examine the source and consider its application.
Where an institution participated directly, it could review and maintain its contribution. Published revisions would become available for subsequent consultation, with the source and version identifiable.
A registrant is a professional on one of the GMC’s registers. Through Relay, they could select relevant guidance for consultation within a compatible AI tool.
This could support learning, reflection and practice throughout their career. A question might concern their own use of AI, or a situation shaped by someone else’s use, such as a patient bringing chatbot advice into a consultation.
The purpose is to bring relevant principles into view and help the person recognise what requires further thought or advice. The professional remains responsible for their judgement.
A registrant could draw on several institutions, including the GMC, an educational organisation, a professional body and authorised sources from their workplace. Each contribution would retain its identity and scope. Differences between sources would remain visible.
Healthcare providers could make reviewed local guidance available through approved AI services, alongside professional standards.
A professional working across several providers could select the appropriate workplace setting. Several providers could draw on shared GMC guidance while maintaining their own procedures.
Access to guidance would sit alongside organisational responsibility for evaluating AI tools, establishing appropriate uses and maintaining safeguards. Institutions could also collaborate on difficulties affecting several settings, rather than leaving each individual to resolve them alone.
People could subscribe to maintained sources in their personal AI tools. Organisations could select sources for the services they provided.
Public guidance could therefore remain available outside workplace systems, including where people used AI beyond their employer’s approved arrangements. Restricted material would require authorised access. Connecting guidance would not establish permission to use a tool for workplace tasks or patient information.
Individuals would control their personal connections. Their professional and employment responsibilities would continue to apply independently of those choices.
The proposed model separates receiving guidance from contributing information. Consulting guidance would not automatically report a person’s activity to an employer or regulator.
Someone could choose to submit a question, seeing its content and recipient before sharing it. Under separately agreed arrangements, institutions could examine recurring issues across contributions without receiving private conversations or routine reports on individuals.
Such patterns could prompt investigation, clarification or changes to practice. They would require human review before conclusions were drawn.
Guidance reaches people through the tools they consult. Experience they choose to share can return to institutions responsible for examining it. Reviewed learning can then strengthen the guidance available to others.
This is part of Humanity Incorporated’s wider purpose: helping people retain informed judgement and helping accountable human institutions understand and act on AI risks. Relay gives the wisdom of those institutions a continuing place in an environment increasingly shaped by AI.
Working today
A working demonstration of the model above, built by Humanity Incorporated from the GMC’s published guidance. Try it here, put it in your own assistant, and see exactly which GMC paragraphs it paraphrases.
About the demonstration. It is ours. The GMC has not published, reviewed or endorsed it. Every passage is our plain-English paraphrase of GMC guidance, labelled as such in every answer, so read the GMC’s own guidance before relying on any of it.
This stands in for the assistant a doctor already uses, with the GMC Relay connected. Press a suggested question or ask your own. The assistant answers, consults Relay, and then says what the guidance adds; open Used Relay @GMC to see exactly what came back, with its sources, its limits and who to speak to. Nothing you type is stored.
The demonstration above is a stand-in. The real thing is a connector inside the assistant you use. You can add it yourself in Claude today; ChatGPT's business plans and Microsoft 365 Copilot need an administrator to add it, and the connection page says which is which. It needs no account with us, and you can remove it at any time.
Add the GMC Relay to your assistant
Open the join page and confirm. It gives you a private connector address for your own assistant.
Paste that address as a custom connector. The join page takes you straight to the connection page, which shows where the setting is.
Ask about consent, confidentiality, raising a concern, prescribing for someone close to you, boundaries, or using AI in practice. When a question touches the guidance, the assistant consults Relay and the answer comes with its GMC paragraph numbers.
Relay keeps no record of what you ask: only that a question was answered and under which topic. You can take the GMC guidance out again, or remove Relay altogether, from My Relay.
The demonstration answers from 16 short passages. Each paraphrases specific paragraphs of 9 GMC documents (8 standards and 1 learning page), and each answer cites the document and paragraph numbers it used. One further passage, on patient data and AI tools, is our own reading and is labelled as ours. The paraphrases are ours, not the GMC's wording. They were checked on 8 October 2026 against GMC text captured from its website the day before, not against the original documents.
These are a small, chosen part of what the GMC publishes. The GMC source catalogue lists the 949 GMC documents and web pages we captured, with links to the GMC's own copies, and says what it is missing. Being in the catalogue does not mean the demonstration answers from a document; these are the ones it does.
The proposal above describes what Relay could do with the GMC taking part. Today this demonstration is ours. We chose the passages, we wrote the paraphrases, and the GMC has no control over what it says. If the GMC wanted doctors' assistants to carry its guidance, the GMC would hold that control, in its own words, and we would stop carrying ours. This is what that would involve, marked by what works now.
Someone at the GMC creates an organisation on Relay and becomes its owner, then invites colleagues into five roles: owner, administrator, steward (who maintains the material), reviewer and member. Nobody can give anyone a role stronger than their own. If the sign-up page asks for an invitation, contact us.
A steward adds each document with the GMC's own address and its standing, so a standard is cited as a regulator's standard, and pastes in the text. Relay splits it into passages it can cite. It is the GMC's wording, not our paraphrase, and nothing is labelled a demonstration.
Not built yet: uploading a file, importing straight from the GMC's website, and recording each document's publisher and in-effect date.
The steward submits the material for review; a reviewer who did not write it approves and publishes it. Relay records who approved it, in what role, and for which version. Nothing can be added to material that is published or under review.
An administrator sets the organisation's contact, which answers name when the guidance runs out. That is one route for every question. The demonstration sends different questions to different people (a referral to the doctor's medical defence organisation and responsible officer, a patient safety worry to their clinical lead); that is written into our code and cannot yet be set by an organisation.
A steward withdraws the material and the very next answer stops using it. There is nothing to recall: Relay keeps no copy of the questions asked or the answers given.
There is no way to transfer this demonstration into the GMC's hands, and we would not want one: the GMC's Relay should start from the GMC's own text, not our paraphrase. Once it is published, we would remove this demonstration and point Relay @GMC, and this page, at the GMC's own.
Relay cannot yet verify that an account belongs to the organisation it names, so every organisation that signs up is shown as self-declared. Before a regulator's guidance carried weight through Relay, that check would need to exist, and we would want to agree with the GMC how it works.
Never the questions. If the GMC chose to switch learning on (it is off for every organisation to begin with), Relay would count answers by topic and outcome, from people who have not opted out. A screen where an organisation sees those counts for itself is not built yet.
If the GMC would like to look at this together, or tell us something here is wrong, use the contact page. We would rather correct a paraphrase than have it repeated. For how Relay works for any publishing body, see publishing into Relay, and for what Relay is, about Relay.
Demonstration pack version 0.2-demo, owned by Humanity Incorporated (demonstration), next review due 7 January 2027.