Prior frameworks for human evaluation of AI systems' performance in diagnostic dialogue have been limited in detail. They have not been anchored in established criteria for assessing communication skills and the quality of history-taking. For example, [29] reported a 5-point scale describing overall "human evaluation", [65] reported "relevance, informativeness and human likeness", [66] reported "fluency, expertise and relevance", [67] "fluency and adequacy" and [68] "fluency". These criteria are far less comprehensive and specific than those taught and practiced by medical professionals. A multi-agent framework for assessing conversational capabilities of LLMs is introduced in [64], however, the study was performed in the restricted setting of dermatology, used AI models to emulate both doctor and patient sides of simulated interactions, and performed limited expert evaluation of history-taking as "complete" or not.