Just shipped. Squarespace is retired, and I did not throw a party. I rebuilt this myself. Code, hosting, bugs, opinions, all of it. Some pages are still unpacking. The good stuff already found its shelf. Just ask.
Evidence Explorer
A curated index of the claims I use in this portfolio, what supports them, and where the edge of the evidence is. Transparency is part of the work.
How to read this
Some proof comes from a published case study, some from a deck or transcript, and some remains an estimate until the underlying source is available. Fictional composites and private prompt banks are deliberately excluded.
10 claims
Supported by: Public product framing and the case-study flow show the minutes-not-weeks experience.
Boundary: The exact benchmark method and sample size are not published here.
Supported by: The figures are carried in the presentation and transcript used to assemble the case study.
Boundary: No district baseline or denominator is presented, so this is not a population-wide benchmark.
Presentation + transcript
Supported by: The outcome appears in the supplied deck material and is represented in the case-study waterfall.
Boundary: The underlying export and denominator still need confirmation before public publication.
Presentation + transcript
Supported by: The product sequence is visible in the supplied product captures and public product material.
Boundary: This describes the information architecture, not a claim about adoption or outcome lift.
Supported by: The case-study account documents the rollout and adoption timeline.
Boundary: The public site does not expose the internal adoption report or denominator.
Case-study source material
Supported by: The before/after range is presented as an approximate operational comparison.
Boundary: The cohort, measurement window, and method are not published.
Retrospective estimate
Supported by: The published case study identifies the retained ARR outcome.
Boundary: This is a reported business outcome, not a causal experiment result.
Supported by: The published case study carries the before/after rating comparison.
Boundary: The comparison does not claim that design alone caused the full change.
Supported by: The case-study narrative and interview notes document the offer as the relationship outcome.
Boundary: The study remains draft-only until the final public wording is approved.
Interview notes + case study
Supported by: The site currently has open editorial work around counter denominators.
Boundary: No claim should be inferred until baselines and definitions are supplied.
Editorial review
No claims match those filters.