What is the rationale for building this profile from the US Core lab profile? An assessment isn't lab result and using this profile may introduce complexity to the PACIO profile.

For example, the US Core profile seems to require one sliced instance of Observation.category where the code is "laboratory". This doesn't seem appropriate for assessment results (especially given the example in http://hl7.org/fhir/us/pacio-cs/2021JAN/profile_highlights_and_guidance.html suggests the use of "survey" as a value)

As well, if the US Core profile is not used, then a more pertinent value set for Observation.code could be created with codes for the various types of assessments described in the IG. Elsewhere in the IG, it says "it is paramount that nationally accepted, standardized coding systems such as LOINC and SNOMED are used in specifying assessment data elements", this would be much easier to achieve if the IG contained focused value sets for relevant LOINC codes.