Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence（ AI） is transforming the acquisition, organization, and application of medical knowledge. The urgent challenge in medical education has shifted from “whether to use” to “how to use it while safeguarding professional competence, redefining the role of educators, and establishing trustworthy governance”. Existing research indicates that while AI can expand opportunities for practice, simulation, and feedback, model performance and short-term learning outcomes cannot substitute for authentic, contextualized evaluation of faculty competence and medical students' clinical proficiency, nor can they replace long-term validation against patient safety and health outcomes.Drawing on international developments and the ongoing explorations of Peking Union Medical College(PUMC) in consensus-building, organizational structuring, faculty training, and case incubation, this paper articulates a standardized and practicable CPTC paradigm—Consensus, Platform, Training, and Case. Grounded in competencepreserving precision education, this paradigm adheres to the principles of “human-centeredness, teacher-student integration, individualized tailoring, and human-machine co-governance”. It defines the platform as an organizational capability that connects knowledge, curricula, faculty, students, and governance, while emphasizing the quality-related responsibilities of teachers and the evidentiary function of cases.The practical explorations at PUMC suggest that medical schools can progressively develop a superviseable, evaluable, and transferable educational capacity by: formulating guidelines for the pedagogical application and ethical governance of generative AI; delivering training programs to enhance faculty AI literacy and instructional design skills; transforming real-world clinical and pedagogical challenges into tiered cases; and establishing mechanisms for process review, learning assessment, and case reuse. The effectiveness of the CPTC paradigm warrants further validation through multi-center practice and long-term evaluation. Its value lies in its origin in the Chinese context—transforming technological advantages into educational capabilities—while offering a comparable and collaboratively developable practical framework for global medical education.