The actual targets we test against, and what would count as real proof

Following up on the "why we aren't naming our candidates" thread: the mechanisms themselves aren't the secret, and hiding them wouldn't prove anything anyway. So here they are, properly written up.

We wrote up the six protein roles our docking pipeline tests candidates against, each with the specific biomarker that would actually count as evidence of benefit, not just a docking score:

https://rasayana.andrii-it.de/blog/aging-targets-and-biomarkers.html

And a companion post with the actual human/animal-model studies behind each of those six roles, PubMed links included, not just plausible-sounding biology:

https://rasayana.andrii-it.de/blog/aging-targets-evidence.html

To be precise about what's still closed: which three of those six roles our actual candidates were selected against, and the compound identities themselves. That stays confidential for the reasons in the previous thread (patent timing).

Two things we can commit to now, though. First, once any of these candidates make it into an actual product, the compound names go on the label - no proprietary-blend hand-waving at the point of sale. Second, regardless of how the current round of lab tests turns out, we're continuing this research; a negative result on one candidate doesn't end the project, it just narrows the search.