Bio_Sole®
Learn more

Regulatory

The Ground_Truth™ Standard: what we will not claim, and why we published it anyway

Todd Gray, Founder, CEO and Principal Inventor · Month and year: to be confirmed · Version: to be confirmed · Pages: to be confirmed

Abstract

Every measurement about a person's body came from somewhere, and most cannot say where. This paper sets out the standard we wrote to answer that, before we had a product to sell under it. A Ground_Truth™ measurement is an observation bound at the moment of capture to a verified identity, an instrument, a timestamp and a condition, so that it can be audited rather than assumed. The paper explains why identity has to come first, why attribution matters more than accuracy, and what the standard rules out: no clinical conclusions, no unearned certifications, no unsourced figures, and no claim that any instrument delivers objective reality. It also states plainly how far along the work is, separating what runs today from what is ahead. We publish it because a standard nobody outside the company can read is only a preference.

Key points

  • A measurement that cannot say who it came from cannot be trusted, and no model repairs that afterwards.
  • Four bindings make a measurement checkable: who, what took it, when, and under what conditions.
  • Attribution is not accuracy. Every instrument carries an error; few can prove whose reading it is.
  • The restraints are the standard. What a company refuses to claim is more testable than what it promises.

Who it is for

Regulators, procurement and compliance reviewers, research partners, and anyone deciding whether to build on our data.

How to cite this paper

Gray, T. The Ground_Truth™ Standard: what we will not claim, and why we published it anyway. v[to be confirmed]. Bio_Sole, [month and year to be confirmed]. bio-sole.ai/en/whitepapers/ground-truth-standard

Bio_Sole is a general wellness product. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, and it is not a substitute for professional medical advice.

Tell us what this paper got wrong.

If a claim, a citation, or a method in this paper does not hold up under your own scrutiny, we would rather hear it from you than from a reviewer we never see.

Ask us for the one that does not exist yet.

Four more papers are being written, and none of them will be gated either. If the answer you need is not in this one - a deeper method note, a figure sourced differently, a question the series has not reached - tell us what it is.