Risk adjustment leaders are being pulled in two directions right now. They are gathering records to defend diagnoses submitted years ago, while racing to finalize the diagnoses that will influence payments beginning in January 2027. One deadline looks backward, while the other will determine what happens next. Plans that received PY 2021 RADV audit notices on May 29 are two months into the five-month record window CMS restored in its January memo, with documentation due around late October. The forward-looking deadline is closer. September 4 is the submission deadline for the 2027 initial risk score run and the service period it covers, July 2025 through June 2026, has already ended. The charts exist. The question is whether they'll be coded, validated and submitted in the weeks left.
The charts under audit are already history
Nothing a plan does this summer changes what's in a 2021 chart. Those notes were written years ago; the evidence either exists in the record or it doesn't. The same applies to the PY 2020 audits, which are conducted quarterly. By the time the audit notice arrives, the record is fixed and the only question left is whether evidence supporting each originally submitted diagnosis can be retrieved quickly.
The charts you can still act on are in front of you
What a risk adjustment leader controls right now is different. The notes from the just-closed service year can't be rewritten, but you decide which codes ride on them into the September 4 run and whether each one carries evidence when it goes. Miss the deadline and those diagnoses don't count in the initial run that sets January 2027 payments; later runs are the only backstop and once the final run closes, the year is closed for good.
Every code submitted today may become a diagnosis you must defend later, when CMS samples these charts in two or three years. With V28 now fully phased in, there's no partial-transition cushion. Today's rushed, unvalidated submission is tomorrow's failed audit.
Where RAAPID OnePass fits
Compressed timelines reveal a problem that exists all year: traditional workflows often distribute coding, validation, deletion and evidence review across separate vendors and review cycles. Six weeks doesn't fit an internal QC cycle, a vendor validation cycle and a pre-submission check. RAAPID OnePass processes each chart once, bringing identification, validation, deletion and evidence mapping into one connected workflow. This works because OnePass does more than NLP. It's a Neuro-Symbolic AI that combines language understanding with rule-based clinical reasoning: it reads the record, links every diagnosis to MEAT evidence in the note and attaches the clinical rationale. Coder validation happens within the same workflow, with audit levels configurable for your program. Supported codes are added and unsupported ones removed in the same review, so moving fast doesn't mean submitting blind.
The payoff arrives twice. First on September 4, when the run is complete instead of partial. Then years later, when the RADV notice comes and a five-month record window becomes a document pull, not a rebuild. The scramble the PY 2021 plans are living through right now is the scenario a single evidence-backed review is built to prevent.
The proof
RAAPID's Neuro-Symbolic AI delivers 92% AI-only coding accuracy, independently validated. With a single coder review, accuracy exceeds 98% (RAAPID internal benchmark). Every submitted code carries a MEAT-backed evidence trail showing what was found, why it qualifies and where it lives in the record. And when KLAS Research interviewed RAAPID customers for the May 2026 Emerging Company Spotlight, workflow efficiency at scale was one of the five reasons they gave for choosing the platform (Emerging Data, n=5).
The question this summer isn't how many review cycles yesterday's charts needed. It's whether the charts you submit by September 4 will hold up when their turn comes.
Take the RAAPID OnePass Challenge
