The following are minutiae, so please don't spend much time looking into them:
I noticed some inconsistencies regarding lab events, specifically regarding various lab events that have no data in the "value" or "valuenum" fields but which nevertheless have values in the comments field.

For example, with lab itemID 51652, "HIV 1 viral load" in blood, there are many inconsistencies related to labevents. For example, many "value" and "valuenum" fields are null. Many of these values have comments which have the value of "DETECTED". Most of these "DETECTED" rows (with no values) seem to have "flag" field values of "abnormal", but some have neither "value", "valuenum", nor "flag" values.

My questions are:

1. On rows with comments that read "DETECTED" but without values / flags (eg labevent_id 40242163), how were these presented in the source EHR lab screen? If they were identified as abnormal in the original EHR, is there a missing data column that would identify them as such? If the absence of "abnormal" flag indicates normal, is there a reason why some rows with "DETECTED <1.3" [log] values (ie about 20 copies) have abnormal flags and some don't?
2. Why are the comments for these lab values partially redacted? For example, comments frequently read "DETECTED <1.3*. PERFORMED USING THE ___ HIV-1 TEST V2.0. FOR RESULTS PRIOR TO ___ SEE MICROBIOLOGY TAB." It seems the specific test is redacted, but the version number is not. But given the "version 2" part, I would guess these tests are "COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan". If the goal is to redact the actual assay brand/type, shouldn't the version number also be redacted? (Although I'm guessing you are going to say that the de-identifier interpreted the assay name as possible PPI and redacted it for that reason.)