Investigation workflows

Atlas is most useful when it helps turn a broad question into a reviewable next step. The workflows below use the signed-in workspace and keep the evidence checks close to the decision. Atlas Explorer holds the operating picture, county evidence, and suggested follow-up. Compare holds two counties. The professional workspace guide lists all six destinations.

For a capability-by-capability view, see current capabilities. For the product's overall model, see the Atlas decision-support workflow.

1. Find a geography or signal for review

Question: Where should our team look first, given the available release?

1. Sign in and open Atlas Explorer.
2. Choose the United States or one state, or select a county by name or FIPS code.
3. Read the map and the county list together. Open county evidence for one county. Suggested follow-up is on that same page.
4. If a map is difficult to use or geometry is unavailable, use the county list and text summaries. The list is the supported non-map path.
5. Record the release, methodology version, geography, and the evidence context that made the signal worth reviewing.

Evidence check: A rank or score focuses attention. It does not mean that the county has the highest disease burden, that missing evidence means zero, or that a cause has been identified.

Next step: Form a bounded question such as, “Which source and time period should we validate for this county?” Then use the evidence and methodology context before requesting follow-up analysis or local review.

2. Compare a county with surrounding or peer geographies

Question: Is this signal distinctive enough, or does it appear in other supported counties in the same release?

1. From Atlas Explorer, open Compare for the county on screen, or choose the first county on Compare.
2. Choose the second county that is relevant to the review question, such as a nearby county or a documented peer. The page accepts two counties.
3. Review the side-by-side comparison and the source, release, method, and completeness context for both counties.
4. Keep the comparison within the same active release. If the release changes, confirm that both counties still match the question.
5. Record why each county was selected and which displayed signal or evidence difference merits follow-up.

Evidence check: The comparison is descriptive. Differences in a score or displayed signal are not evidence of causation, a statistical test, or a person-level risk difference. Different reporting practices, geographies, vintages, and missingness can make apparent differences difficult to compare.

Next step: Choose the smallest defensible follow-up—source validation, local surveillance review, a time-bounded analysis, or expert consultation—and state what evidence would change the interpretation.

3. Inspect evidence before deciding what to investigate next

Question: What supports this result, and what remains uncertain?

1. Select the geography in Atlas Explorer and open county evidence.
2. Open source, release, and methodology context in the selected-county evidence panel, and read the relevant methods section in the application.
3. Check the source or publisher, source time or vintage, geography and boundary, active release, methodology version, generated and loaded or retrieved context, completeness, known limitations, and any uncertainty language.
4. Distinguish “no record available” from “zero.” Look for the fields that are present, the fields that are missing, and whether the inputs are comparable before drawing a conclusion.
5. Write the investigation question and the evidence gap together. For example: “The county is a review candidate in release X; validate the human-disease source vintage and vector coverage before interpreting the signal.”

Evidence check: Atlas combines measures that can have different publishers, schedules, years, and scales. A result is only as interpretable as the provenance and limitations that accompany it.

Next step: Ask a qualified reviewer to validate the source context and local meaning, then decide whether the question warrants additional analysis, field investigation, coordination, or no action.

Record and share the review

When you share an Atlas result, keep a small review record:

• the URL and the date you opened it;
• the active release identifier and methodology version;
• the selected state, county, or county set;
• the view, metric, filters, page, and score assumptions used;
• the source, geography, time or vintage, freshness, completeness, uncertainty, and limitations you observed; and
• the follow-up question, reviewer, and decision about what happens next.

The URL is a useful handoff because it preserves supported analytical state. It is not a substitute for recording the release and evidence context, and it should not be described as reproducing a future result after the underlying release changes.

In-product help

• Use Atlas Explorer for the county list, county evidence, suggested follow-up, and the county PDF when Atlas can verify it.
• Use Compare for two counties. The county list remains the non-map path when the map is unavailable.
• Keep the AI Ethics commitments nearby when reviewing any AI-enabled or experimental experience.
• Return to current capabilities when you need to distinguish a released behavior from a planned or experimental one.

Atlas helps identify what may deserve investigation. The epidemiologist and responsible public-health organization remain accountable for interpretation, validation, and action.