Case study: Roche Norge, January to July 2026
AI helps in daily work when a person checks every answer against its source.
AI (artificial intelligence) here means software that writes text and answers questions. As Internal AI Coach at Roche Norge, I built ways of working with AI for each department on the pharmaceutical side. They included a check that AI answers match their sources, and workshops on real tasks. I taught each department to use them.
How I did it.
I first did an internship in market access, from September to December 2025. Market access is the work of getting new treatments funded so patients can get them. Roche Norge then employed me in a 40 % role as Internal AI Coach (January to July 2026). The voluntary AI courses I designed during the internship led to the AI-coach role.
01 Built Around each team's daily tasks
I built ways of working with AI for every department on the pharmaceutical side of Roche Norge (therapies, not diagnostics). I started from each team's daily tasks. The ways of working took the form of AI assistants that answered from the documents the team worked with, ready-made questions to paste into AI for recurring tasks, and step-by-step set-up guides.
02 Taught One department at a time
I taught each department, one at a time, to use the ways of working I built for it. I also ran workshops on real tasks in market access, marketing and finance.
03 Checked Every answer against its source
I built a citation check for AI answers. It checks that what an answer says matches the source it cites. I set the check up as an AI assistant with written instructions and reference files; it does the comparing, and a person makes the final call. My rule for AI: check every answer against its source and leave the final judgement to people.
04 Afterwards What colleagues could do
Afterwards, colleagues in each department knew how to use AI in ways made for their own daily tasks.
The value of AI comes from how well the everyday work runs, not from an impressive demonstration.
Work with AI can go fast. But if sources are handled poorly and no one clearly checks the work, the result is hard to trust. Teams that must follow strict rules need routines that show the facts used, the assumptions made and who is responsible.
The question is not whether a tool can write a draft. The question is whether the work can be checked.
Bringing AI into use means making the work checkable.
A worked example, built from public material
Find the sentence the source does not support
This is a constructed example that shows my rule: read the source and keep only what it supports. It uses public material only. At work I built a check that compares what an AI answer says with the source it cites. This example is not that check, and it is not a test of it.
1. The source
English translation
How much are the authorities really willing to pay for a good year of life?
No absolute limit has been set. The Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) has decided that the priority criteria are to be assessed together. They must also be weighed against each other. The more severe a condition, or the greater the benefit of a treatment or other measure, the more the authorities are willing to pay.
Norwegian original
Hvor mye er myndighetene i realiteten villige til å betale for et godt leveår?
Det er ikke fastsatt noen absolutt grense. Stortinget har bestemt at prioriteringskriteriene skal vurderes samlet, og at de i tillegg må veies mot hverandre. Jo mer alvorlig en tilstand er eller større nytte et tiltak har, desto høyere er betalingsvilligheten.
The same page names the priority criteria: resource use, benefit and severity. It measures benefit by how many good years of life a treatment gives patients on average.
Source: Prioriteringskriteriene ved offentlig finansiering (Priority criteria for public funding), Norwegian Medical Products Agency (DMP), page updated 9 April 2024, retrieved 7 October 2026.
2. The question
Is there a fixed limit on how much the authorities will pay for a good year of life?
3. The AI answer
Constructed example, not a real answer from any workplace.
- No, no absolute limit has been set.
- The more severe a condition is, or the greater the benefit of a treatment, the more the authorities are willing to pay.
- A treatment for a very severe illness will therefore always be paid for.
- The Norwegian Parliament has decided that the priority criteria are assessed together and weighed against each other.
Your turn: find the sentence the source does not support. Then check your choice below, one sentence at a time.
4. Check each sentence against the source
Open a sentence to see the passage in the source that supports it, or that nothing does.
-
1 No, no absolute limit has been set.
Supported. The source says:
Det er ikke fastsatt noen absolutt grense.
In English: No absolute limit has been set.
-
2 The more severe a condition is, or the greater the benefit of a treatment, the more the authorities are willing to pay.
Supported. The source says:
Jo mer alvorlig en tilstand er eller større nytte et tiltak har, desto høyere er betalingsvilligheten.
In English: The more severe a condition, or the greater the benefit of a treatment or other measure, the more the authorities are willing to pay.
-
3 A treatment for a very severe illness will therefore always be paid for.
Not supported.
Nothing in the source supports this sentence. The word “therefore” makes it sound as if it follows from sentence 2. It does not: being willing to pay more is not a promise to pay.
-
4 The Norwegian Parliament has decided that the priority criteria are assessed together and weighed against each other.
Supported. The source says:
Stortinget har bestemt at prioriteringskriteriene skal vurderes samlet, og at de i tillegg må veies mot hverandre.
In English: The Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) has decided that the priority criteria are to be assessed together. They must also be weighed against each other.
Show the answer
- The unsupported sentence
- Number 3: “A treatment for a very severe illness will therefore always be paid for.”
- What the source says
- The authorities are willing to pay more when a condition is more severe or a treatment brings more benefit. The criteria are weighed against each other. The source never says that any treatment will always be paid for. Being willing to pay more is not a promise to pay.
- The corrected answer
- No, no absolute limit has been set. The more severe a condition is, or the greater the benefit of a treatment, the more the authorities are willing to pay. The Norwegian Parliament has decided that the priority criteria are assessed together and weighed against each other.
- Before the answer is used
- A person reads the source and decides what to keep. Here, that means deleting sentence 3 and using the corrected answer. Is the real question whether one specific treatment will be paid for? Then this source cannot answer it. Look for the decision made for that treatment.
Why this matters
An AI answer can sound sure while adding something its source never said. The check is to read the source and keep only what it supports. It is like checking a receipt against your shopping bag: every line can look right until you find an item you never bought.
My background is healthcare and health economics, and I use AI with a person checking the result.
- 10 years
- Experience as a healthcare professional in Norway, Australia and New Zealand.
- Master's in health economics
- The European master's in health economics and management (EU-HEM). It covered health economics, HTA and market access.
- 5 languages
- Norwegian, English and Portuguese (fluent), Spanish (native) and French (working).
In work that must follow strict rules, AI needs written records, checks against sources and a person reviewing the result. These must be in place before many people start using it.
Get in touch
Based in Oslo, ready to relocate.
Is your organisation bringing AI into work where answers must hold up against their sources? I would be glad to discuss roles in that kind of work. You can reach me through the contact page.