Skip to main content

Proof

What gets measured, and when it appears.

Ten men are starting the first cohort under my own name. Every marker at day 0, day 45, and day 90 will be published here in aggregate — not selected wins, the full distribution, including what did not move.

I have not published outcomes yet. A practice that sells verification does not get to publish numbers it has not verified. When there are numbers, they will be here, and they will include the ones that did not go my way.

The honest version

What four years actually earned

110+ protocols built inside an elite Los Angeles practice under Camilo Cereijo. Four years. This is the first cohort under my own name.

Those 110 protocols were built inside Camilo Cereijo’s practice over four years. What I carry out is the method: the diagnostic sequence, the pattern recognition, and the build order. The outcomes belonged to that practice. What I have committed to publishing is on this page. The rest arrives in ninety days.

The twelve published measurements

Twelve measurements, published

Three of them are outside biology.

#MeasurementWhy it earns the slot
1Free testosteroneYour headline biological claim
2SHBGThe commonly missed finding
3AM cortisolMechanism behind the 3am wake-up
4hs-CRPBest single inflammation read
5Fasting insulinMetabolic, earliest signal
6Sleep efficiencyFast, visible, credible
7Resting HRVAutonomic state
8Resting heart rateCleanest single trend line
9Lean mass / body fatObjective, verifiable
10Decision latencyYour most differentiating metric
11Calendar re-acceptance %Territory's best number, no daily burden
12Partner-rated presenceThird-party verified, uncopyable

Cohort 01

The outcome table, published empty

This table is live and reads from the same records the engagement writes to.

Cohort 01

intake open · n = 0
Instrumentd0—d45d0—d90n
Biology
Free testosterone
SHBG
Morning cortisol
hs-CRP
Fasting insulin
Sleep efficiency
Resting HRV
Resting heart rate
Lean mass
Sovereignty
Decision latency
Territory
Calendar re-acceptance
Lineage
Partner-rated presence

Twelve published measurements. Three of them are outside biology, which is more than any other practice in this price band publishes at all. Another dozen are tracked per client for protocol decisions and are not published, because a metric you collect inconsistently is worse than no metric.

Also tracked

Tracked per client, not published

These inform protocol decisions but are not reliable enough across a cohort to publish as outcome data.

Reactivity eventsCollapsed into a single weekly 1–5 rating, not an event log
Presence hoursCheckpoint estimate at d0/45/90, not weekly counting
Repair latencyCaptured in the partner instrument instead
Council contactIntake + checkpoints only
Environmental readingsd0/45/90, three measurements
First-touch latencyIntake + checkpoints
Screen timePassive from phone, checkpoint only
Travel adherenceSession note, not a metric
Values alignmentCheckpoint instrument, d0/45/90
Runway / dependency ratioIntake + d90
Grip strengthCheckpoint, d0/90
ApoB, HbA1c, lipidsIn the panel, reported as panel not spine
Food log, weigh-insProtocol tools, not outcome instruments

Standards

Four commitments about what appears on this page

01

Aggregates before anecdotes

Median deltas across the cohort, with n stated. A single man’s numbers prove nothing.

02

Failures published alongside successes

Markers that did not move get the same row and the same visibility as markers that did.

03

No individual narrative without written consent

Aggregate, de-identified numbers require no consent. Any case study describing one man’s situation requires his written permission plus ten business days to review the draft and object.

04

No composites presented as clients

If something on this page is illustrative rather than measured, it will say so in the same size type as everything else.

What I have seen

Patterns from 110+ protocols

These are not outcomes from my own cohort. They are patterns I observed across four years and more than 110 protocols built under Camilo Cereijo. They informed how this practice was designed.

The most common first finding is not testosterone. It is fasting insulin.

Men who fix sleep architecture first hold their protocol changes at three times the rate of men who start with training.

The partner report moves before the man reports feeling different. In every protocol where it was administered.

Environmental readings — temperature, light, CO₂ — account for more sleep improvement than any supplement in the first thirty days.

Calendar re-acceptance rate is the single best predictor of whether a protocol survives month two.

The men who stay past ninety days are not the ones whose numbers moved most. They are the ones who reached Direction and Legacy.

Decision latency drops before self-reported stress does. The man feels the same pressure and simply acts sooner.

Supplement stacks shrink over the first sixty days in nearly every protocol. The labs that justified them at intake no longer do by day 45.

Men who start training in week one lose adherence by week four. Men who start training in week three, after sleep and chemistry are addressed, hold it through month three.

The single most underestimated intervention is morning light exposure. It outperforms every sleep supplement in the first two weeks.

When my own cohort data arrives, it will appear in the outcome table above alongside these observations — including what did not replicate.

No published cases yet.

Data arrives with the first completed engagement

No published case studies. When cohort 01 closes at day 90, cases will appear here from clients who consented in writing.

Ten seats. Two tiers.

The first cohort is the one whose data ends up on this page. First-cohort rates reflect that. The men who stay past ninety days are the ones whose data fills it.

4 of 10 seats · Cohort 01