Increase Energy

Proof required

Submit your 7-day energy log with morning, midday, and evening ratings for each day, alongside sleep hours, hydration notes, and movement minutes. Identify your primary dip point (morning, midday, or evening) and the input variable that most strongly correlated with your higher-energy days.

What gets checked

• All three daily ratings recorded on each of the 7 days — a partial log with some time slots missing cannot reliably identify the dip point
• Morning rating taken before coffee or other stimulants — post-stimulant ratings inflate baseline energy and obscure the natural pattern
• Primary dip point identified with supporting evidence from the log — not asserted from prior belief

Common mistakes

• Rating energy at the same time regardless of the three target windows — the morning-midday-evening structure is specifically designed to reveal the time-of-day pattern
• Skipping the hydration and movement columns because they seem peripheral — these are the input variables; without them, the correlation analysis in M2 has no data to work from
• Back-filling the log from memory at the end of the week — recalled energy ratings cluster toward average and eliminate the day-to-day variance that reveals the pattern

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm that three ratings per day are present for all 7 days — 21 total data points; if fewer than 18 are present, the dip-point identification is unreliable
• Check that the morning rating is noted as pre-coffee or pre-stimulant — if this is not specified, ask the submitter to clarify their morning protocol
• The primary dip point and primary input correlation must be supported by the log data, not simply asserted — ask the submitter to show which days had higher energy and what input differed on those days

Proof required

Submit your 8-week intervention log with daily completion ticks for the intervention, dip-point energy ratings, and weekly average energy scores at each of Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8. Confirm which intervention was chosen and which dip point it targets.

What gets checked

• Intervention must directly target the dip point identified in M1 — a general wellness routine that doesn't address the specific dip point is not compliant
• Weekly averages drawn from daily ratings — if only a weekly average is submitted with no daily data, request the underlying log
• Dip-point rating recorded separately from the three standard daily ratings — without the dip-point-specific tracking, improvement in the primary problem cannot be isolated

Common mistakes

• Targeting all three time periods simultaneously — the M2 design isolates one intervention deliberately; changing multiple variables prevents knowing which produced the effect
• Switching the intervention at Week 2 because progress is not yet visible — circadian and metabolic adaptations typically emerge at 3–5 weeks, not 1–2
• Treating the intervention as a suggestion rather than a daily commitment — compliance percentage is the primary quality signal in M3; low compliance undermines the result regardless of energy change

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the intervention explicitly targets the dip point from M1 — a morning wake-time intervention for an evening dip is not compliant
• Weekly averages must be present at Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8 — weekly check-ins at fewer than these four points leave a gap in the trend
• Dip-point ratings should be recorded as a separate column or clearly labelled row, distinct from the three standard daily ratings

Proof required

Submit your final 7-day energy log, the comparison table with M1 and M3 averages for each time of day, intervention compliance percentage, and the attestation confirming who observed you, how frequently they saw you, and what energy-related changes they noticed.

What gets checked

• Comparison table must include all three time-of-day averages (morning, midday, evening) for both periods — a single overall average obscures whether the targeted dip point improved
• Compliance percentage calculated from daily log data, not estimated — '90% compliant' asserted without underlying data cannot be verified
• Attester must have observed the submitter regularly across the whole programme, not only in the final weeks

Common mistakes

• Selecting an attester who only knew the submitter after the programme began — the attestation must describe change from baseline, which requires having observed the baseline
• Conflating energy increase with mood improvement or motivation — energy is a physical state (alertness, absence of fatigue) not equivalent to mood or motivation, though they correlate
• Omitting the compliance percentage because it is low — low compliance with a positive result is a finding, not a failure; the evidence is only honest when compliance is reported

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The comparison table must show time-of-day averages separately (morning/midday/evening) for both M1 and M3 — an aggregate score alone does not confirm the dip point improved
• Attestation must name the observer and describe their regular contact with the submitter — 'my line manager who has 1:1s with me weekly' is sufficient; 'a friend' is not
• If compliance percentage is below 50%, the result should be interpreted cautiously — confirm the submitter is aware that a strong result with low compliance may indicate measurement error rather than genuine change