Controlled interrupted time series
Uses repeated observations before and after policy introduction with matched comparison sites.
- Time-varying trend is explicit
- Comparison series is available
Weavidence Journey
Design a stronger study, understand every choice, and turn it into a review-ready protocol.
Weavidence Journey helps researchers move from a research question to a protocol they can defend, by making each study-design decision explicit, comparing real alternatives, and keeping a record of what was chosen and why.
Available nowWeavidence Journey is live at app.weavidence.com. Sign in free with a personal Google account — no shared credentials, no paid plan. It supports research-design decisions; it is not a clinical decision system, and external scientific validation of the platform is not yet complete.
- 01Research question
- 02Design-relevant facts
- 03Candidate designs
- 04Methodological decision
- 05Protocol assembly
- 06Review
- 07Export
The protocol problem
A finished protocol rarely shows its own reasoning: why one study design was chosen over another, what evidence supported that choice, what alternatives were considered and set aside. When that choice is questioned later — by a reviewer, an ethics board, or your own future self — usually only the polished prose is left to defend itself.
Live workspace preview
JourneyProtocol Workspace · synthetic example
Journey live-product previewAir-quality intervention studyPersonal workspace
Protocol PR-024Revision r07Synthetic scenario
Methodological decision
Saved · r07Choose the study design
Does a low-emission-zone policy reduce annual mean NO₂ at urban monitoring sites compared with matched sites outside the zone?
Difference-in-differences
Potentially suitable, but the parallel-trends assumption requires stronger pre-policy evidence.
- One unresolved assumption
- Review before selection
Temporal structure needs attention.
Comparison-series coverage is adequate.
One blocking evidence item remains.
Preview protocol and Decision Trace
Export will include the saved protocol revision, selected-design rationale, unresolved concern, reviewer state, and Decision Trace. No export is generated from this public representation.
- 01Research question
- 02Design-relevant facts
- 03Candidate designs
- 04Methodological decision
- 05Protocol assembly
- 06Review
- 07Export
The seven-stage Journey
Journey keeps the reasoning behind a protocol as real, inspectable state: your research question, the candidate study designs, the evidence for and against each, and the decision you actually made. The protocol document is generated from that state rather than drafted separately from it, so a design choice can always be traced back to why it was made.
- Frame the research question
State the question the study is meant to answer before any design decision is made.
- Surface what matters to the design
Identify the facts that materially affect study design — population, exposure, outcome, setting.
- Compare candidate designs
See design options side by side, with their concerns, uncertainty, and tradeoffs visible rather than hidden inside a recommendation.
- Confirm or override, with reasoning
Accept a candidate design or choose a different one — the override itself becomes part of the traceable decision record.
- Assemble the protocol from the same decisions
The protocol document is built from the same state as the decisions that produced it, not drafted separately.
- Review readiness and unresolved evidence
See findings, transition readiness, and any accepted risk before moving forward.
- Preview, then export
Preview the protocol and its full decision trace, then generate outputs in the format you need.
Alternatives and convergence
Controlled interrupted time series
Time-varying trend is explicit; a comparison series is available.
Difference-in-differences
Parallel-trends assumption needs stronger pre-policy evidence.
The researcher's decision — not an automatic score — is what converges into the protocol.
Protocol assembly and revision trace
- Study designFrom the confirmed design decision
- Population and settingFrom the design-relevant facts stage
- Analysis planFrom the methodological decision, with alternatives on record
Unresolved finding
Seasonality adjustment needs a declared model before this transition is marked ready.
Every export carries the Decision Trace: what was considered, what was chosen, and why.
Study-design decisions and alternatives
Core capabilities
- Design comparison you can see behind
Candidate designs sit side by side with their tradeoffs visible, so you judge one against another instead of trusting a single recommendation.
- A protocol built from your decisions
The document is generated from the same state as the choices behind it — nothing is drafted separately and then reconciled.
- Export in the format you need
Professional HTML, PDF, DOCX, or canonical JSON, each carrying the same underlying record.
What sets it apart
- Decision Score, Design Fit, and Readiness stay separate
Three distinct, deterministic indicators, not one blended score — so you can see what’s strong, what fits, and what’s still missing.
- You keep the final call
Journey supports every design decision; it never finalizes a methodological choice on its own.
- A visible decision trail
Every confirmation or override stays part of the protocol’s own record, available with every export.
What the researcher receives
- The protocol document
Generated from your study-design decisions, in professional HTML, PDF, DOCX, or canonical JSON.
- The Decision Trace
A record of what was considered, what was chosen, and why — included with every export.
- A technical evidence package
For teams that need the underlying structured record, not just the narrative document.
Why the reasoning holds up to review
- You retain methodological authority
Journey never finalizes a design choice on its own — you confirm or override every one.
- Every decision leaves a trace
Confirmations and overrides are part of the protocol’s own record, not lost once the document is generated.
- Revisions stay visible
Read, edit, suggest, and compare modes keep prior revisions inspectable instead of silently overwritten.
- Uncertainty stays visible
Unresolved findings and open concerns are shown plainly, not smoothed over before export.
Availability and limitations
What exists today
- A real, operational application at app.weavidence.com, free to use with a personal Google sign-in.
Not yet
- Completed external scientific validation of the platform itself.
Limitations
- Journey is a research-design support system, not a clinical decision system, and is not intended for clinical use.
- It does not replace expert methodological or ethical review, and it does not treat fluent output as proof of a sound design.
Sign in at app.weavidence.com with a personal Google account to start a protocol — no waitlist, no paid plan required.
Who it’s for
- Researchers designing a study who want their design decisions — not just the final protocol — to be inspectable.
- Public-health teams and institutions that need a traceable, revision-safe protocol-development record.
- Students and methodological reviewers evaluating or teaching study-design reasoning.
Frequently asked questions
Is Weavidence Journey available now?
Yes. It’s operational at app.weavidence.com, free to use with a personal Google sign-in — no shared credentials or paid subscription required.
Does Weavidence Journey write my protocol for me?
No. It keeps your study-design decisions as explicit, inspectable state and builds the protocol from them. You retain methodological authority throughout — Journey supports the decision; it doesn’t make it.
What are Decision Score, Design Fit, and Readiness?
Three separate, deterministic indicators. Decision Score reflects how strong and well-supported your current decisions are; Design Fit reflects how well a specific candidate design matches your objective and evidence; Readiness reflects whether your current state is complete enough for a given transition. They’re related, but never collapsed into one number.
Can Weavidence Journey be used for clinical decisions?
No. It is a research-design support system, not a clinical decision system, and is not intended for clinical use.
Has Weavidence Journey been externally scientifically validated?
Not yet. External scientific validation is a separate, ongoing effort and remains incomplete — stated plainly rather than implied otherwise.