From Discipline-Specific Assessments to Shared Functional Judgments: The Body Function Report as a Computable Person-State Interface in UOHF/HFWM

Abstract

Medical, rehabilitation, exercise, nutrition, and psychological services often assess the same person using different constructs, records, and professional responsibilities. Exchanging these records alone does not establish which conclusions can support specific actions, which decisions depend on other professions, or how plans should change when new evidence emerges. This methodological paper proposes the Body Function Report as an evidence-qualified, purpose- and permission-bounded interface for coordinated services, grounded in the Unified Ontology of Human Function (UOHF) and the Human Function World Model (HFWM). It connects personal goals, task demands, functional capacity, actual functional engagement, performance, costs, medical restrictions, professional responsibilities, and longitudinal changes while preserving their distinct meanings and evidence requirements. The proposed report retains a seven-part person-facing overview and an accessible catalogue of 18 core and 104 specific human functional capacity objects. A constructed 21-day service episode demonstrates how a physician, rehabilitation therapist, fitness trainer, nutrition professional, and psychology professional read, document, use, and exchange information concerning the same person. It illustrates medical permissions and restrictions, task-specific assessments, exercise execution records, privacy-preserving information exchange, and selective plan revision following new clinical information. The study specifies eight reporting invariants and six candidate coordination mechanisms, executes 24 bounded reference-program checks, and proposes a matched-information 2 × 2 evaluation design to distinguish the effects of HFWM reasoning from those of report presentation. The framework is discussed in relation to WHO ICF and ICOPE, HL7 FHIR CarePlan, the International Patient Summary, and PROMIS. The study does not use real patient records or establish clinical effectiveness. Its central testable proposition is that an evidence-qualified shared person-state may improve interdisciplinary decision quality, professional handover, person-centred service coordination, and longitudinal review without replacing specialist authority.