Telemedicine Africa
18th World Congress on Public Health, Cape Town 2026 Health Without BordersEquity, Inclusion, and Sustainability Telemedicine and Connected Care Lab University of Johannesburg, 21 years of impact
Information conflicts

Where our sources disagree

This event is being assembled from a recorded conversation, a planning outline, a programme PDF, a docx evaluation form and three generations of flyer. Those sources do not all say the same thing — and something has to be published anyway, so a choice gets made. This page is every one of those choices.

Each entry names the sources, states what each one actually says, says what this site publishes today, and names who decides. Nothing here is rhetorical: if an entry is wrong, the fix is a one-line edit to site/content_conflicts.py and a rebuild.

6UndecidedNobody has ruled on this. The site publishes a provisional answer and says so.
2Corrected on purposeThe site departs from an approved document deliberately, and needs sign-off to stop being a departure.
3Decisions on the recordSettled by someone making a call rather than by a document, so kept visible and reversible.

Conflicts

Undecided Flyer · certificates · this site

Whose funding is being credited

  • Flyer v1 (the supervisor’s own)Front page carries “Funded by the European Union” and the African Academy of Sciences mark. Both were inherited by v2 and v3 and by the partner row on this site.
  • Confirmed 26 August 2026The African Academy of Sciences mark is the ARISE mark — ARISE is an AAS programme, and that is the logo to use for it.
  • Still unconfirmedWhether ARISE or the EU fund this masterclass. The marks arrived with a flyer built for the wider ARISE work, and no funding instrument naming this event has been produced.
  • Two more marks, 1 September 2026The African Union and Carnegie Corporation of New York marks were added to the partner row on request. They carry the same question as the two above and no more evidence: neither arrived with a funding instrument, a grant number, or written permission to use the mark. The AU sits among the partners and Carnegie among the funders, and that placement is itself an assertion about each relationship that nobody has confirmed.
Why it matters

This is the entry with the largest downside. The same logo set is slated for 80 printed certificates. Crediting a funder that did not fund the event is a misrepresentation on a document attendees keep, cite and attach to CPD claims — and it is not fixable after printing.

What this site publishes

Four marks now: the EU and AAS inherited from the flyer, plus the African Union and Carnegie Corporation added on 1 September. All four are in the partner row. Nothing has been removed, and nothing has been confirmed.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila — and before any certificate is printed

Undecided Flyer

A photograph that was signed off but is not on the sheet

  • Sign-off list, 13 August meetingReads back the approved front-page elements as “registration information, QR code and the healthcare image”.
  • source/Planning outline_19.08.2026.docxFront-page specification includes “Attractive healthcare image”.
  • Flyer v3, as builtThe front page carries no photograph. Every image on it is a logo. The only portraits are the six on the back.
Why it matters

Either a different artefact was signed off — the v1/v2 PPTX both have a front-page image — or v3 dropped an element the supervisor believes is there. Until that is settled, “the flyer is approved” is not a statement anyone should rely on.

What this site publishes

v3 as built, with no front-page photograph.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila — confirm which artefact was approved

Undecided Programme · this site

Session descriptions are specified, promised, and absent

  • source/Planning outline_19.08.2026.docx, item 7“Session Descriptions — Prepare a short paragraph for each presentation”, with a worked example.
  • 13 August meetingSession descriptions appear beneath the programme — “a short paragraph for each session description, this is now the speaker abstract”.
  • As publishedEleven programme rows expand to an empty description. The 250-word abstracts they need have been requested from the speakers and not yet returned.
Why it matters

This is the one blocker with three deliverables behind it: the speaker one-pagers, the programme dropdowns and the session descriptions on this site all wait on the same emails. It is the critical path.

What this site publishes

The dropdowns exist and are empty. They fill in the moment the abstracts land — no rebuild of anything else.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila — chasing the speakers

Undecided This site

“Free to attend” and the certificate are spoken, not written

  • 13 August recordingBoth the no-fee position and a certificate of participation are stated in conversation.
  • Written recordNeither appears in the planning outline, the programme PDF, the registration form or any approved document. CPD accreditation, which a certificate implies, has no paper trail at all.
Why it matters

On a public page these read as commitments. “Free” is what fills seventy seats; a certificate is what many attendees are coming for. Either one withdrawn later is a promise broken in public.

What this site publishes

Both, as stated in the meeting.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila — a one-line written confirmation is enough

Undecided Social kit

The intended X handle cannot exist

  • The social kit, as plannedOne handle across every platform: telemedicineafrica.
  • X’s own limitHandles are capped at 15 characters. telemedicineafrica is 18. Signup will reject it.
  • Worse than the old nameThe previous name was one character over and truncated to telehealthafr, which still read. Three over does not truncate — telemedicineaf is not a word. It has to be contracted instead: telemedafrica, at 13, is the shortest that still reads as the name.
Why it matters

Small, and cheap to fix now. Expensive later: the handle is printed in the social kit, and it is about to be on a flyer, a programme and eighty certificates. Splitting the identity across platforms is the outcome to avoid.

What this site publishes

The social kit flags the limit, gives the arithmetic and names telemedafrica as the fallback. No account exists yet, so nothing is committed.

Who decides

Whoever creates the accounts — pick the fallback first

Undecided Speaker cards

The keynote speaker has no speaker card

  • speaker-cards/Six “I AM SPEAKING” cards exist: Malila, Munodawafa, Pérez-Ramos, Makubalo, Conrad, Motchon.
  • The programmeProf. Omowunmi Mary Longe delivers the keynote address at 09:00.
  • source/Prof Longe_short bio.docx was supplied, so the material for a card exists.
Why it matters

The keynote is the name that draws an audience, and hers is the one missing from the announcement set. If the omission is deliberate, it should be recorded; if not, it is a card that takes minutes to generate.

What this site publishes

Six cards. Prof. Longe is on the site and in the programme, with no card.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila — deliberate or an oversight?

Corrected on purpose Evaluation form

The masterclass starts at 08:00, or at 09:30

  • source/Telemedicine_Masterclass_Evaluation_Form.docxHeader reads “Thursday, 10 September 2026 • 09:30–15:30 • UCT Graduate School of Business”.
  • source/WCPH Speakers and Program - V11.08.2026.pdfHigh-level programme opens with “08:00 – 08:30 Registration”, led by Ms Tshidi Rashama.
  • Flyer v1, v2 and v3; source/Planning outline_19.08.2026.docxAll three flyer generations and the planning outline give 08:00 – 15:30, one-day intensive.
Why it matters

The evaluation form is handed to every attendee. A 09:30 start printed on it contradicts the programme they followed from 08:00, and reads as though ninety minutes of the day did not count.

What this site publishes

08:00 – 15:30, on the form and everywhere else.

Who decides

Dr Bessie Malila (event lead) · Dr Dodzi Motchon (form owner)

Corrected on purpose Evaluation form

The form asks attendees to rate sessions the programme does not run

  • source/Telemedicine_Masterclass_Evaluation_Form.docxUnder “Please rate each session” the approved form lists exactly three rows: Keynote presentations, Panel discussion, Hands-on demonstration.
  • The programmeThere is no panel discussion. There is one keynote, not several. The day is nine distinct blocks — four talks, four group activities and the student research showcase — none of which the three rows name.
  • source/Planning outline_19.08.2026.docxIts example programme does contain “12:15–13:00 Panel Discussion”. The form appears to have been written against the example rather than the real agenda.
Why it matters

Rating a session that did not happen produces junk data, and asking for it tells seventy attendees that the organisers did not check their own programme. It also loses the per-session feedback the day was designed around: the four group activities are the format being trialled here, and the approved form cannot see them at all.

What this site publishes

The nine real programme blocks, each with an N/A option, in SESSION_ROWS.

Who decides

Dr Malila, Dr Motchon and Dr Pérez-Ramos — named because the form carries their sessions

Decisions on the record

Not conflicts any more. Here so that whoever disagrees can find the decision and reverse it, instead of inheriting it.

DecidedFlyer

The full abstract is back on the flyer

An earlier revision cut the nine-sentence abstract to a ~70-word paraphrase because the full text did not fit an A4 front page. That solved a layout problem by discarding the supervisor’s own words. Restored 26 August 2026 from source/Workshop flyer_v1.pptx, where it is headed “Abstract”, and rebuilt as a retractable card: the opening two sentences are always visible and are the only part that prints, and the remaining seven expand on screen. The sheet still fits.

Edits made to the source text
  • Its own name for the event, “The Masterclass in Telemedicine Workshop”, is set to the approved title the masthead two inches above it already carries.
  • US spellings normalised to SA English (“organisations”, “patient-centred”) to match every other deliverable.
DecidedEvery deliverable

The 2027 TCC mark replaced the navy roundel

assets/logo-tcc.png is the normalised input every generator reads, so the mark behind that filename is one decision. Since 26 August 2026 it is the 2027 mark — the globe with the orange TCC and the navy wordmark. The programme document uses the AI-background variant at larger size, where the circuit-trace field reads as texture rather than noise; logo rows keep the plain mark.

DecidedEvery deliverable

The UJ mark is the bird-and-wordmark lockup

assets/logo-uj.png was a reversed white-on-orange tile. It is now the standard lockup normalised from source/uj-logo-1.jpg — which is a palette PNG behind a .jpg extension, with a transparency checkerboard baked into its pixels, flushed to white on the way in. The separate logo-uj-bird.png was the same lockup under a second name and has been removed: one mark, one filename.

What is not on this page

Only recorded disagreements — two or more sources that cannot both be true. Open work, missing material and things nobody has written down yet are tracked in site/README.md, not here, because a register that mixes “these two documents contradict each other” with “this is not finished yet” stops being read.

The masterclass Evaluation form