Commitments
The lines we do not cross
These are the commitments Well holds regardless of growth pressure, commercial convenience, or how the market shifts. We publish them so that anyone — a patient, a clinician, a skeptic — can hold us to them.
We say exactly how strong the evidence is, and no stronger.
Our evidence tiers are real, and we use them consistently: "moderate confidence" means moderate confidence, not a euphemism for hope. Hedged language survives editing even when it is commercially inconvenient. And we publish our own calibration — stratified where we are most exposed, in sparse evidence, contested conditions, and long-tail interventions — because an aggregate score can hide exactly the failures that matter.
We surface only what has documented evidence at a defined tier, and we show the tier.
Nothing appears in our recommendations without documented evidence behind it, and the strength of that evidence appears alongside the recommendation, not in fine print. The tier is transparency about how much weight a recommendation can bear.
Our revenue never shapes what we recommend.
Revenue never comes from practitioners in ways that could affect where we route anyone. No paid placement, no paid ranking, no recommendation weight for sale. On our platform, credibility is earned through outcomes evidence — never purchased.
On any indication of a condition that needs conventional care, we refer out — every time.
We screen aggressively for red flags, and we err toward referral to conventional medicine on any sign of a condition that requires it, because the cost of missing something serious dwarfs the cost of a cautious referral. This holds for every user, in every case, and nothing else on this page bends it.
Our methodology is public and auditable.
Our recommendation logic, curation methodology, credentialing standards, and validation criteria are publicly documented. Anyone who wants to check our work can.
We never sell user data.
Not to advertisers, not to insurers, not to anyone. Consented, de-identified research aggregation under explicit, published methodology is a different thing — and we treat that distinction seriously, rather than using "research" as a euphemism for sale.
We track and report what does not work with the same rigor as what does.
Negative outcomes, dropouts, and adverse events are counted, not buried. Practitioners do not curate which of their cases count toward validation: representative coverage — failures included — is a requirement, not an option.
Clinical judgment answers to clinical governance, not to growth.
Our clinical authority is structurally independent. Clinical content cannot be overridden by marketing or growth decisions, and the person responsible for clinical quality does not report to the person responsible for revenue.
We hold every tradition we cover in parallel, each on its own terms.
The systems of medicine we work with — a set that grows as our coverage grows — are first-class citizens, maintained with respect for their internal logic. Conventional categories are one map among several, not the master frame the others get squeezed into — and none of this exempts any tradition, conventional medicine included, from honest evidence tiers.
Why we work this way is argued at length inour philosophy.