Evidence & Governance
What this section is for
This section explains how we think about evidence, risk, and governance — so that claims on other pages aren’t just marketing copy but are grounded in a transparent process.
How to use this section
If you care about rigor, read this before trusting stronger claims. Use it as a map to deeper documents and to understand the limits of what we’re currently comfortable saying.
How we will use this section
As NAVA matures, we’ll expand this into clearer claim cards, public-facing recaps, and (where appropriate) references into more detailed evidence packs.
How we handle claims
Internally, NAVA uses a simple pattern for thinking about statements we make:
- Supported — backed by data, experience, or clear evidence.
- Conservative — intentionally under-promised because we’d rather be pleasantly surprising than the opposite.
- Tradition — practices that are widely used but not always formally studied.
- Proposal — ideas we’re exploring that have not yet been validated.
- Gated — things we explicitly do not claim until certain conditions are met.
In this v0.1 bundle, most of what you see about Nava House is either Conservative, Tradition, or Proposal. If and when we add strong Supported claims (for example, outcomes from actual guest data), we’ll label them clearly.
Where the evidence lives
Behind this bundle there is an internal, append-only full_record that tracks:
- Project decisions and rationale.
- Artifacts like samplers, ask-lists, and specs.
- Links to source material (e.g., public listings, event descriptions).
We don’t publish that full_record directly, but we do use it to keep public stories honest and to give collaborators a deeper view when appropriate.