Editorial Standards

Labelling Methodology

Last updated: July 2026 · Applies to all Coherva articles, transmissions, and practice descriptions

This is the Coherva Evidence Standard. Scientific claims carry one of three labels: PROVEN, THEORETICAL, or EMERGING. Claims drawn from wisdom traditions, myth, or lived practice carry one of three others: TRADITIONAL, SYMBOLIC, or PRACTICE-BASED. 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 lab does not replace the monastery, the temple, the desert, or the disciplined life. It gives us another instrument.”

Science measures mechanisms. Tradition preserves meaning. Practice joins them. Coherva does not use science to cheaply validate tradition, and it does not use tradition to overstate science — each register is kept in its own lane, clearly marked, side by side.

The Scientific 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

Beyond the Lab: Tradition, Symbol, and Practice

Not every claim in Coherva content is a scientific claim. When we quote a contemplative tradition, offer a mythic or symbolic reading, or describe something known only through disciplined practice, we label it as such — never as science, and never as a lesser cousin of science.

TRADITIONAL

Preserved in a religious, philosophical, contemplative, or mythic system.

A TRADITIONAL claim is not a hypothesis awaiting proof — it is the historical record of what a tradition taught, practiced, and handed down. We name the tradition and, where possible, the text or teacher. We do not present it as scientific corroboration.

SYMBOLIC

Archetypal, poetic, mythic, or metaphorical interpretation.

A SYMBOLIC reading draws meaning the way myth and parable always have — not as a literal or testable claim, but as a lens on human experience. We say so plainly, so it is never mistaken for a measured finding.

PRACTICE-BASED

Known through disciplined practice, not reducible to lab proof.

Some things — the felt difference between a wandering mind and a settled one, what forgiveness costs, what silence asks of you — are known by doing them, over years, under discipline. We treat that knowledge as real without dressing it up as data.

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 passed off as scientific evidence. "Ancient texts said so" earns a TRADITIONAL label of its own — it never earns PROVEN, THEORETICAL, or EMERGING.
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.