Here is what we can’t claim.
We start with what people actually experience.Then we look for what the research can honestly support.
01
We don’t start from the literature. We start from something people actually recognize, and then look for the strongest research that supports it. If the evidence can’t carry the claim, we change the claim.
02
We say how strong the evidence is. Every claim on this site carries what kind of study it came from, who was studied, and whether it shows a relationship or a cause.
03
We don’t dress up a weak finding. No big percentage without its context. No arrow implying cause where the study only found an association.
And here’s what we can’t claim. Shado is not a clinical tool and hasn’t been tested as one. Research about how people in general regulate emotion, replay conversations, or recover from stress is not evidence about you. It’s the reason we think the questions are worth asking — the answers come from your own life.
Evidence tiers
A — strong. Meta-analysis or replicated experimental work with a clear population.
B — good. Consistent findings across sound studies, usually correlational.
C — suggestive. Worth raising as an open question, and framed as one.
D — never published on this site.
Causal language
We write "associated with" when a study found an association, and we do not write "causes" unless a design could establish it. An arrow that implies cause on correlational evidence is the most common way this category misleads people, and we treat it as a mistake rather than a style.
What Shado is not
Shado is not a clinical tool and has not been tested as one. Research about how people in general regulate emotion, replay conversations, or recover from stress is not evidence about you.