Traceability is not proof
A DOI or official page helps a reader locate the source. It does not prove that a generated interpretation is correct for an individual.
Direct answer: ChangeLoop 7 can document how its workflow is designed and which research mechanisms informed that design. It cannot currently claim that the complete product has been clinically validated, guarantees a lasting habit, or changes a person within seven days.
Public claim register
| ID | Claim | Class | Source | What the source supports | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL7-R01 | Seven days is used as an observation and review interval, not a habit-formation promise. | Research + design | Lally et al. (2010); weekly-cycle specification | Habit development varies by person and behavior; a fixed weekly checkpoint is a product-design choice. | Does not prove that seven days forms a habit or produces permanent change. |
| CL7-R02 | A small action may be expressed as a specific cue-response plan. | Research mechanism | Gollwitzer (1999); Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) | Implementation intentions can help connect a defined situation with an intended response. | Does not establish that every generated plan is suitable or effective for every customer. |
| CL7-R03 | Recording an observable signal can support review of goal-directed behavior. | Meta-analysis | Harkin et al. (2016) | Progress monitoring can support goal attainment under studied conditions. | A self-reported Done or Not done mark is a signal, not independent proof of an outcome. |
| CL7-R04 | Behavior-change techniques should be named precisely instead of treated as one vague intervention. | Research framework | Michie et al. (2013) | A structured taxonomy can describe intervention components consistently. | A taxonomy does not validate the complete ChangeLoop 7 workflow. |
| CL7-P01 | The customer answers a fixed intake, receives three method options, selects one, and follows one current-day action. | Product fact | Public workflow specification | Describes the intended and testable product workflow. | An implementation fact is not scientific evidence that the workflow changes behavior. |
| CL7-P02 | ChangeLoop 7 is not an open-ended AI chatbot. | Product boundary | Workflow comparison; FAQ | AI is limited to defined analysis checkpoints; ordinary daily status does not open unlimited chat. | This distinction does not establish lower cost, better outcomes, or superiority for every user. |
| CL7-C01 | One introductory seven-day cycle is offered without charge; published subscription prices apply before cycle two. | Commercial fact | Current pricing page; machine-readable pricing | Describes the currently published offer and billing boundary. | Pricing can change and is not evidence of effectiveness, payment, revenue, or customer demand. |
| CL7-O01 | Product-specific completion, retention, sustained change, and comparative-effectiveness outcomes are not established. | Evidence gap | Evidence map; research method | Makes the current absence of approved outcome evidence explicit. | No testimonial, success rate, clinical claim, or guaranteed result should be inferred. |
How to read the register
Mechanism is not product validation
Research can inform one design component while leaving the complete product untested as an intervention.
First-party facts can change
Workflow, pricing, privacy, and security statements must be checked against their current authoritative pages and release state.
Missing evidence stays visible
When no suitable evidence exists, the statement is narrowed, removed, or recorded as an evidence gap rather than presented as a fact.