Part 2 Continued

Why the 2026 Findings Cannot Be Clinically Correct

This section explains why the conclusions recorded in the 2026 routine assessment are not just contradictory — they are clinically impossible. The findings described in the 2026 letter cannot occur in a neurological visual impairment, and therefore cannot be considered valid.

2.5 — Why the 2026 Findings Cannot Be Clinically Correct

 

The conclusions recorded in the 2026 assessment are not clinically possible for a neurological visual impairment. They describe patterns of change that cannot occur in a condition caused by early‑life injury to the brain’s visual pathways.

 

Neurological visual impairment is permanent, non‑fluctuating, and stable over time. It does not behave like an ocular condition, and it does not respond to routine optometric testing.

Neurological nystagmus cannot “come and go”

 

The 2026 letter described the young person’s vertical nystagmus as:

  • “intermittent”
  • “variable”
  • “inconsistent”

These descriptions are incompatible with neurological nystagmus.

Neurological nystagmus:

  • is constant
  • is present in every assessment
  • does not fluctuate
  • does not resolve
  • does not appear intermittently

It is a permanent feature of the original neurological injury.

If a clinician reports that neurological nystagmus is “intermittent”, this indicates that:

  • the impairment was not measured
  • the wrong tools were used
  • the clinician interpreted neurological features through an ocular lens
  • the assessment method was not appropriate for the condition

Eye‑movement control cannot “resolve”

 

The young person has a long‑established impairment of eye‑movement control. This has been documented consistently for three decades.

 

Neurological impairment of pursuit and saccadic control:

  • does not improve spontaneously
  • does not fluctuate
  • does not revert to normal
  • does not present differently depending on the day

The 2026 findings imply a level of variability that is not physiologically possible.

Spatial‑awareness deficits do not fluctuate

 

Spatial‑awareness impairment is a core feature of neurological visual injury. It affects:

  • navigation
  • depth perception
  • stability of vision during movement
  • safe engagement with the environment

These deficits do not vary between appointments. They do not appear “intermittent”. 

 

They do not resolve.

 

Routine optometry cannot measure spatial awareness, so the 2026 assessment could not have detected — or ruled out — these deficits.

A neurological injury does not revert to normal

 

The 2026 letter implied that certain features were:

  • “not present today”
  • “not observed during this appointment”
  • “inconsistent with previous reports”

This suggests that the clinician interpreted the absence of observable signs during a routine test as evidence of improvement or variability.

 

But neurological injury does not behave this way.

 

If a neurological feature is not observed during a routine optometric test, it means:

  • the test was not capable of detecting it
  • the methodology was inappropriate
  • the impairment was not measured

It does not mean the impairment changed.

Why the 2026 findings cannot be relied upon

 

The findings are clinically impossible because they describe:

  • variability where none exists
  • intermittency where none is possible
  • resolution where none can occur
  • ocular patterns applied to a neurological condition

The 2026 assessment did not fail because of a single error. It failed because it attempted to measure a neurological condition using methods that cannot detect neurological impairment.

 

The conclusions are therefore clinically invalid, and cannot be used for:

  • decision‑making
  • safeguarding
  • continuity of care
  • governance review
  • risk assessment

This section forms the foundation for understanding the safeguarding and governance implications that follow.

These safeguarding risks do not arise from clinical disagreement — they arise from governance failure. The next section examines how the 2026 assessment created systemic governance problems that affected safety, continuity, and the reliability of the clinical record.

 

Next 

Safeguarding Risks Created by the 2026 Assessment

 

 

 

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

UA-54289644-1