Editorial Standards
Labelling Methodology
Last updated: April 2026 · Applies to all Coherva articles, transmissions, and practice descriptions
Every claim in Coherva content carries one of three labels: PROVEN, THEORETICAL, or EMERGING. This is not decoration. It is a commitment. This page explains exactly what each label means, what standard a claim must meet to earn it, and what we refuse to publish.
The Three Tiers
PROVEN
Peer-reviewed, replicated, named.
A PROVEN claim has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and replicated in at least one independent study. We name the institution, the lead researcher, the publication, and — where reported — the effect size. Statistical significance alone is not sufficient. The effect must be meaningful in scale and consistent across populations.
- Published in a peer-reviewed journal
- Independently replicated at least once
- Effect is meaningful, not only statistically significant
- We name the researcher, institution, and year
- We do not extrapolate findings beyond the study population
- Animal findings applied to humans are always noted as such
THEORETICAL
Plausible. Consistent with established science. Not yet directly demonstrated.
A THEORETICAL claim proposes a mechanism that is consistent with established biology and supported by at least one published study, but has not been directly demonstrated in controlled trials or replicated. We describe the proposed mechanism in plain language and clearly state that it is a hypothesis, not a finding.
- Mechanistic hypothesis with biological plausibility
- Supported by at least one published study
- Not yet replicated or directly demonstrated
- We use "proposed," "hypothesised," "consistent with" — never "shows" or "proves"
EMERGING
Early research. Promising. Awaiting replication.
An EMERGING claim is drawn from early-phase research — pilot studies, small samples (typically n<50), or single randomised controlled trials awaiting independent replication. The findings are real and worth reporting, but should not be treated as settled science. We note sample size limitations where relevant and flag when findings come from a single laboratory or research group.
- Early-phase research (pilot, small-n, or single RCT)
- Findings have not been independently replicated
- We note sample size and study limitations explicitly
- We do not aggregate weak studies to claim a strong finding
What We Refuse to Publish
These are disqualifying, not debatable.
- Anecdote presented as data. A tradition's long use of a practice is noted as historical context, never as scientific evidence.
- Single-study findings labelled PROVEN. One study — even a large, well-designed RCT — earns EMERGING until independently replicated.
- Traditional authority as scientific evidence. "Ancient texts said so" is context. It is not a label.
- Mechanistic speculation without biological grounding. A THEORETICAL label requires a plausible biological mechanism — not a metaphor.
- Extrapolation beyond the study population. A finding in sedentary adults aged 55–70 is not a finding in athletes aged 25.
- Non-scientific language dressed as science. "Energy," "vibration," "quantum" (outside literal quantum physics), "the universe" as an agent — none of these appear in Coherva claims.
Sourcing Standards
Every PROVEN and EMERGING claim names its source. We cite the lead author, the institution, and the year. Where possible we link directly to the abstract or full text. We do not cite secondary sources (articles about studies) as primary evidence.
For THEORETICAL claims, we name the biological mechanism and the published work that supports its plausibility. If a THEORETICAL claim rests on inference across multiple fields, we describe the chain of reasoning explicitly.
Traditional and wisdom tradition references are cited by text and tradition — not as scientific corroboration, but as the historical record of human observation that predated the instruments to measure it.
How Labels Are Applied
Labels are applied at the claim level, not the article level. A single article may contain PROVEN, THEORETICAL, and EMERGING claims. Each is labelled at the point it appears. The most conservatively supported claim in an article does not determine the label of other claims in the same article.
When the evidence base for a previously PROVEN claim is subsequently challenged by meta-analysis or replication failure, we update the label and note the revision. We do not delete or revise history — we append corrections.
What This Is Not
This methodology does not constitute medical advice. The labelling system is an editorial standard for accuracy and transparency in science communication. It is not a clinical protocol and does not replace consultation with a qualified healthcare provider.
Health Disclaimer: Coherva content is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.