Where this resource is weakest
Read this before trusting us. A resource that publishes its verification receipts should publish its limitations with the same candor: these are ours, with live numbers where the data allows.
10
clinical-guidance entries still at the weakest evidence tier ("emerging")
N/A
citations awaiting human re-check per the latest integrity run
2
languages where only the interface is translated so far. In-depth content remains English
No summary can speak for a tradition
Guides describe documented patterns from each tradition's authoritative sources. Beliefs vary by denomination, school, culture, and person. A summary smooths what lived faith does not. The patient's own voice always supersedes anything written here.
Independent review has started and is not complete
Content is informed by peer-reviewed literature but is not yet independently clinician-reviewed. No genuine clinician, chaplain, or scholar review has occurred yet, for any content here. The reviewer sign-off tool records sign-offs in your own browser only; it does not submit anything or represent a completed review. When real review happens, reviewers will be named here and on the About page.
A single-maintainer, independent project
Built and maintained in a personal capacity: no institutional affiliation, no IRB oversight, no journal peer review, and no registered legal entity (nonprofit, LLC, or otherwise) exists yet. Large language models help source and structure drafts, which are then human-verified against primary sources; mechanical checks catch dead links and mismatched identifiers, not subtle misreadings. That is exactly why the correction pathway exists on every citation. The automated weekly re-verification schedule is currently paused by a CI hosting limitation. The integrity report shows the date of the last completed check and discloses its age rather than presenting it as fresh. Any services beyond this educational platform remain planned: none are offered, and none will be until the gates stated on the Get Involved page are met.
Coverage has edges
14 traditions are covered in depth. Many more exist. Content depth is currently serious-illness and end-of-life care; the full planned scope and current status of every topic is at the coverage map. Framing is predominantly U.S.-centric (Medicare, U.S. hospice models); one page (EOL care) has an additive England/UK module anchored in NICE guidance, the first non-US country module. Everything else remains U.S.-only. The provider directory covers Southeast Michigan. Spanish and Arabic currently translate the interface only (Español, العربية). In-depth content remains English pending expert-reviewed translation. Coverage is also uneven across traditions: only 13 traditions currently have an approved list of authoritative sources a claim can cite, and that list is deepest for traditions with centralized institutional bodies (fiqh councils, denominational offices, responsa literature). Decentralized or less-institutionalized traditions are structurally harder to source, and at least one (Christian Science) currently has no approved source list at all, so no claim about its position can be verified under our own rules yet.
Not advice, ever
Educational and conversation-starting only: never medical, legal, or religious counsel. Decisions belong with the patient, family, physician, faith leader, and care team.
Why publish this page? Because a claim is only as trustworthy as its stated boundary. Full pipeline and correction policy: Methodology.