What we think, and how sure we are.
Sleep research is genuinely uncertain in places. Effects that hold in a laboratory can shrink in a normal week, findings measured in one group do not always travel to another, and some questions are still being argued over. Rather than smooth that over, we rate it — and publish the definitions we rate against.
Four levels, defined in advance.
Every guide and every brief on Restadian carries one of these four ratings. The rating describes the state of the research, not how much we like the idea.
Strong
A well-described mechanism supported by repeated findings across independent groups, with results that point the same direction.
Reasonable to act on. Individual response still varies, so the timing and the amount are yours to adjust.
Moderate
Consistent enough to be useful, but the size of the effect, the conditions it needs, or the people it was measured in leave real room to move.
Worth trying as an experiment you can reverse. Watch what happens over a fortnight, not a night.
Emerging
Early or narrow work. The idea is plausible and being actively studied, but it has not yet been tested widely enough to know how far it travels.
Interesting, not directive. We report it so you know it exists, not so you rearrange your evening around it.
Contested
Credible work disagrees. Different methods, populations, or definitions produce different answers, and the disagreement has not resolved.
Treat any confident claim in either direction with suspicion, including ours. We explain the disagreement rather than pick a side.
One question at a time.
A brief takes a single question, states what the evidence looks like, who it was studied in, and what is still unresolved. It is shorter than a guide and more specific: less "how to handle light", more "does this particular thing do what people say it does".
No briefs published yet
Briefs are published one question at a time, and only once the sources behind them are assembled. The scale above is already in force for everything that follows.