How to read the evidence
Green, amber, grey — what the flags mean, and the disease-vs-healthy-aging distinction.
Three flags, one honest scale
Every site card and evidence record in this network carries one of three flags. They are deliberately blunt so you can read the strength of the evidence at a glance without decoding a score.
● green — lifespan RCT
Reserved for a genuine healthy-aging human lifespan randomized controlled trial. Nothing in this network is green. No mechanism site has one; the colour exists on the scale only so its absence is visible.
▲ amber — qualified
Real human data, but not a healthy-aging lifespan RCT: a biomarker RCT, a small pilot, an observational cohort, or a hard clinical outcome measured in a disease population. Every live site in this network is amber. Amber means “there is human evidence, and here is exactly what it did and did not show.”
○ grey — none / not yet
Animal or mechanism data only, or — for planned sites — no published content yet. Grey is not a criticism; it marks where human outcome evidence is absent or where a site does not exist.
The distinction that catches people out
A hard clinical outcome in a disease population (for example, a mortality benefit in heart-failure patients, or a drug effect in a rare marrow-failure syndrome) is real and important — but it is disease treatment, not evidence that the same intervention extends healthy human lifespan. The network keeps these apart on purpose, and never lets a disease-population result be read as a longevity result.