Editorial Standards

Why this page exists

I would rather show you how this site is built than ask you to trust it. So here is the standard I hold every page to, who is accountable when it falls short (me), and exactly where AI helps and where it is kept away from the work.

The science libraryThe primary-source standard

Every claim in the science library traces back to a primary source: peer-reviewed research in PMC and PubMed, NIH and other .gov resources, university (.edu) work, and major journals. If I cannot point to the study, the claim does not go up. Product claims are narrower still. They come only from the approved structure-function claim set, and nothing outside that set is presented as a claim. Every approved claim is published, in its exact wording, in the public claim registry.

I also label what kind of statement you are reading. There are three tiers: verified fact, meaning it is established in the published research; operating conclusion, meaning I reasoned it from the science and our own pre-commercial testing and acted on it, but it has not been proven in a controlled trial; and interpretation, meaning it is how I read the evidence. The labels are part of the writing, not fine print bolted on at the bottom. (The honest version is usually the more interesting one anyway.)

Local and social contentThe local-accuracy standard

The local pages answer to a different test: are they accurate, and are they actually useful. Real store names, real addresses, real phone numbers for the places that carry the product. Correct Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth geography, no doorway pages, no thin copy cloned from one city to the next. Doses come from one product source-of-truth and are never retyped from memory, because retyping from memory is exactly how a wrong number ends up on a page.

ResponsibilityThe framing is always human

Whatever help I use to draft or organize a page, the framing is mine. What to say, how to weigh the evidence, which claims to make and which to refuse, and whose name stands behind the result are my decisions, as co-formulator and co-inventor on US Application 18/698,010. Editorial responsibility does not get handed to a tool. And if something on this site is wrong, that is on me, not on software.

Patent applications use clinical terminology appropriate for USPTO filings. The consumer marketing language for Hangovr180® follows separate FDA regulations for dietary supplements under DSHEA -- which is why what you read on the label sounds different from what you read in the patent.

DisclosureHow AI is, and is not, used

AI helps me draft, organize research, and find citations faster than I could alone. It does not decide what is true, what we claim, or what gets published. A human reads every page and is accountable for it. That line does not move.

Any AI-generated image on this site carries IPTC photo metadata and the schema.org digitalSourceType property that marks it as synthetic, so that a person or a machine can tell a made image from a photograph. Right now the science library uses none. Every image is real photography. But if that ever changes, the label travels with the image.