Part 2 continued

Methodology Failure in the 2026 Assessment

This section builds on the explanation of why routine optometry was not appropriate for assessing a neurological visual impairment. It examines how the use of an incorrect clinical framework directly shaped the 2026 assessment and led to findings that could not be clinically valid.

2.3 — Methodology Failure in the 2026 Assessment

The 2026 assessment did not use the clinical methods required to evaluate a neurological visual impairment. Instead, it applied a routine optometric framework, which is designed for standard eye conditions and cannot measure the core features of the young person’s condition.

This is not a small oversight. It is a methodological failure that shaped every conclusion that followed.

No neuro visual tests were performed

A neurological visual impairment requires specialist testing, including:

• analysis of eye‑movement control
• assessment of vertical nystagmus
• evaluation of visual‑processing ability
• functional‑vision assessment in real‑world contexts

None of these were carried out.

The clinician used tools designed to measure ocular function, not neurological function. As a result, the assessment could not detect the impairment it was supposed to evaluate.

No functional‑vision assessment

Functional vision — how a person sees in real environments — is central to neurological impairment. It includes:

• spatial awareness
• depth perception
• stability of vision during movement
• ability to navigate safely
• visual fatigue and overload

These are the areas where the young person experiences the greatest difficulty.

The 2026 assessment did not evaluate any of them.

No analysis of eye‑movement control

The young person’s impairment includes:

• permanent disruption of eye‑movement control
• vertical nystagmus
• reduced stability of gaze

These features have been documented consistently for three decades.

Routine optometry does not measure these. The 2026 assessment did not attempt to.

No reference to the established clinical baseline

A 30‑year specialist baseline existed. It was not accessed, referenced, or replicated.

This baseline is essential because:

• neurological impairment does not fluctuate
• the young person’s condition has been stable for decades
• any deviation from the baseline requires clinical justification

The 2026 assessment did not acknowledge the baseline at all.

The assessment treated a Neurological condition

as a

Routine Case

By using routine optometric methods, the clinician:

• assessed the wrong system
• used tools that cannot measure the impairment
• interpreted neurological symptoms as if they were ocular
• produced findings that contradict the established record
• created a misleading clinical narrative

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of methodology.

A neurological condition was assessed using methods that cannot measure neurological function. The outcome was therefore clinically invalid from the outset.

With the methodological failures of the 2026 assessment established, the next section shows how those errors produced findings that directly contradict the long‑standing specialist record. These contradictions are not differences of opinion — they are clinical impossibilities.

Next

Why the 2026 Findings Cannot Be Clinically Correct

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved