Cited capability comparison
Service 01
Integration Compatibility Review
See where the documented capabilities align, where they do not, and what still needs an answer before the integration plan is approved.
Decision this supports
Use this before approving an integration approach, escalating a vendor claim, or committing the project to a test plan.
Questions this review answersAre the required services documented on both sides?
Do the stated roles, transfer syntaxes, SOP classes, and workflow assumptions align?
Which claims are explicit, conditional, version-dependent, or absent?
When to use it
- A new modality, PACS, VNA, viewer, AI application, or workflow component
- A vendor selection or architecture decision
- Conflicting claims about what two systems support
Typical inputs
- Relevant DICOM conformance statements
- Interface or workflow requirements
- Available product and version details
- Known project constraints and assumptions
Before review begins
Scope and timing are agreed first.
The engagement starts only after the project decision, workflow, systems, versions, document boundary, revision process, and handoff are explicit.
- One decision and one bounded workflow
- Named systems and versions
- Approved evidence and handling boundary
- Review window and client dependencies
- Finding-review and revision method
- Final deliverables and working-session handoff
Deliverables
What your team receives.
Gap, dependency, and unknown register
Questions to resolve with vendors or internal teams
Recommended acceptance test focus
The review ends with a documented handoff.
Findings include recommended ownership and next actions. Imaging Preflight does not manage vendors, close project actions, certify the integration, or replace testing in the client environment.
Initial inquiry
Start with the project, systems, and decision.
A non-sensitive outline of the workflow, versions, uncertainty, and decision date is enough to begin. Do not attach project documents to the first note.
Discuss a review