Ancient wisdom brought into the digital age

Not alarm; just calm

Martin Reeves – turbulent environment business plans are useless

Leaf from biology – fortunately this is my academic field. eco-systems

Use the lean canvass

Testing the SALTT Hypothesis

The gold standard of double-blind controlled clinical research protocols would be too detailed and too long; would not  yield the insights I need; and cost about $3bn. Clinical trials do offer a useful template though.

SALTT has deep theoretical and scientific underpinnings coming from psychology and philosophy, but this research initiative is not intended to be academic; that might be appropriate later on. The present research is about providing phased and rapid iterations of validated learning; it is pragmatic research focussed on immediate development of sustainable business.

The fundamental question is: Does SALTT work? This question is about the benefits and values it confers to the end user (not about proving code). In approaching the fundamental question then we first need to ask: Does the way of evaluation work?

A sustainable business relies on paying customers, therefore it requires that the system works for others also. This leads to the next phase of the research: Does SALTT work for others? These are the end users, and not necessarily the procurers of the system. However, proof of actual working would be required to secure institutional customers who are anticipated to use it with end users. This, of course, is uncertain and so leads to questions of business: Does SALTT work for mental health professionals? Would they be prepared to pay for it?

This sequence of questions are to be answered through the following four phases that emulate clinical drug trials.

Phase 0 Testing the Methodological Hypothesis (SALTT V0.1.9 FP2509-2510)

Discovery and preclinical research “Patient Zero”

Time scales iterations 

2024-11-end Low point

2025-02-xx dev for own use

2025-04-xx considered salt for others

2025-11-19 built inventory;Reading=5.0; made forecast for Jan 2026;  retrospective est for late 2024 0.2

2025-12-30 Reading 7.5

2025-12-03 To 2025-12-30 FP09

Prerequisites: 

• the SALTT prototype
• Lived personal experience

To:

• develop a testable MVP: SALTT V0.2.0
• develop and test an inventory of “clinical” effectiveness.

SALTT was developed initially for self-use. Before its development, I (the developer) was plagued with suicide ideation. Through its coding and use I developed an intuitive sense that it was working, or at least contributing to the improvement in my mental wellbeing. Given that I was suicidal before and now I am in the process of turning it into a sustainable business, then it might be inferred that SALTT has indeed assisted me. My recovery journey is documented in my journal; but of course, this is anecdotal and personal. 

That it might also work for others in my situation, lead to consideration that it had potential commercial viability and further exploration.

No formal metrics were applied at my “low-point” (November/December, 2024), nor when considering the concept as a prospective product and development of the initial prototype. It was only when occurring on the conversion of the prototype into an MVP that the need for more formal research approaches became apparent. The MVP was built to establish whether the system may, or may not, work for others. There are two main concerns here: usability and efficacy, and both require testing. Before applying these tests to a sample population, those two research agenda need designing and testing. Evaluating the methodological hypothesis is the purpose of “Phase 0”.

Insofar as usability testing is concerned, separating out from solo-developer, the roles of developer and user is not particularly meaningful. Proper usability testing is to be invoked upon release of the MVP to a suitable sample of expert users.

Phase 0 then is about designing a method, an inventory, by which the efficacy of SALTT might be evaluated. The parameters of recovery were proposed retrospectively, and included AI analysis of my personal journal. They were taken to be those issues that I realised I was struggling with at the low-point.

• Feeling ground down
• Sensing no purpose
• Languishing
• Being overwhelmed and slipping further down
• Being utterly frustrated

These were put on a Likert scale of 0 to 5; the high ends of the parameters were the composite of the low ends. Two time points were plotted: Where I was late 2024 (which was a retrospective estimate from memory) , where I was one year on, in late 2025, which was done in real-time. As an adjunct experiment, I also posited where I wanted to be for early 2026. Aggregates of the measures were also calculated.

Results Test of methodological hypothesis and hypothesis: n=1

Given that such inventories as the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 (as well as the present one), are subjective ratings then the barometer of the estimate is whether they appear not to contradict lived experience. The Aggregates for late 2024 and late 2025 were 0.2 and 5.0 respectively, with an increase of 4.8. The crucial point is that there was a significant improvement and therefore the results do not contradict my experience. The forecasted aggregate of the desired state for early 2026 was 7.2. The need to figure out Google Forms (and satisfy my curiosity) measured the actual ratings December 30th 2025 reading: the aggregate was 7.5. Again, all that can be said about such subjectivity, and in the absence of other research resources, is that this figure feels about right. The interesting point about the “experimental” anticipated state is that it was not a forecast, but rather an aim! Aiming for a result isn’t experimental science, nor indeed was any hypothesis pondered (it was a grounded method). But the whole point of SALTT, and salience, revolves around goals, aims and aspirations; these are what improving psychological wellbeing is about. If, as is suspected, there is an element of self-fullfilling prophesy between the desired result and how things transpired, then such might represent an effective mechanism for achieving the desired result; that prospective mechanism would demand a proper investigation (which is outside the scope of the present study).

The initial testing of the methodological hypothesis, albeit on a miniscule sample, suggests that it is sufficiently applicable to subsequent phases for establishing whether SALTT works for others who are in the same situation that I was. Of course, pivoting is highly probable on encounter with a wider sample population.

Phase I Usability Testing SALTT V0.2.0 (FP2511)

Primarily to determine safety, safe dosage range, and how the drug works in the body.

2025-12-31 To 2025-01-27 Test platform and recruitment

2026-01-28 To 2026-03-26 Conduct usability testing; implement feedback

Prerequisites: 

• a testable MVP

To:

• test the MVP: SALTT V0.2.0 for usability
• produce a useable MVP: SALTT V0.3.0

The next area of evaluation, before testing on a real-world CMHC symptomatic sample population, is to see if the software is usable, and adjust accordingly. This is to be established from a sample of asymptomatic expert users, who are familiar with software testing and feedback. This required the MVP to be a suitable test platform, the recruitment and deployment of software experts, the issuing and evaluation of a usability feedback form. Independent contract research would require funds that are unavailable at this time.

In accordance with agile software development methodologies, a rapid iteration cycle is to be used. This means that adjustments can be implemented while the tests are being performed rather than waiting until the end of the trial before assessment.

A subsidiary test is also to be performed in this phase. While PWPs are the beachhead market for remedial treatment of CMHCs, SALTT is primarily a generative instrument with a personal excellence (PX) application. Expert users are not presumed to have CMHCs; they can still rate their before and after scores on the inventory. However, this measure is likely to indicate that a different inventory is required, such as that proposed by Seligman.

Phase II “Clinical Trials” (SALTT V0.3.0 FP2600-2602)

To gather preliminary data on effectiveness and further evaluate short-term side effects.

2026-04-01 To 2026-06-30

Prerequisites: 

• Client recovery inventory; 
• A usable MVP: SALTT V0.3.0
• structured PWP impression interview.

To: 

• test the recovery effectiveness of SALTT qualitatively
• adapt MVP to real-world therapeutic applications: SALTT V0.4.0

Phase II is the equivalent of that in clinical trials. It will be used in the go/no go decisions, or make informed adjustments, to progress onto later phases.

However, SALTT is not intended as a clinical instrument, rather it offers a means of exploring values and meaningful activity. A small sample group of PWPs are invited to incorporate SALTT into their work with their clients, entirely at their professional discretion and can drop out at any time. 

PWPs tend to use inventories, such as GAD-7, PHQ-9, before, during, and after the course of intervention. The client recovery inventory can be scored alongside these. While, as with all client information, inventories will be confidential, it is the summation of the therapists’ impressions of SALTT that is of interest: was their work made more effective through employing SALTT? Because of the small sample size, individual training and closer investigation methods, such as interviewing the PWPs is amenable.

There will also be elements of usability testing for both therapists and clients and suggested modifications to the software will be very welcome.

While drug trials also look for side effects, adverse consequences of SALTT are not foreseen. However, even mindfulness has been shown, in rare cases, to bring about difficult experiences. Abreactions are mitigated by an experienced guide and for which PWPs are well versed in. The possibility should not be overlooked where an individual uses SALTT unsupervised.

This phase will require research funding and some institutional collaboration.

Phase III (SALTT V0.4.0 

To confirm effectiveness, monitor side effects in a larger population, and compare the new treatment to the existing standard treatment.

2026-07-01 To 2027-06-31

Prerequisites: 

• A therapeutic applicable MVP: SALTT V0.4.0

To:

• build a market ready product: SALTT V1.0.0
• gather independent quantitative evidence on SALTT’s efficacy

Should SALTT prove effective with a select sample, then the third phase extends the trial to a wider population. This will be a pre-market testing to ensure market readiness.

The protocols will be similar to those in phase II, except that participant PWPs will be asked to aggregate collected quantitative data rather than impressions. Here, the question becomes one of impact metrics: compared to previously, is SALTT cutting waiting times and are potential crises being averted?

Institutional research collaborations will be maturing by this point and so will offer an initial contract research opportunity. Independent market research will also be beneficial and will begin to explore the PX market.

This phase will require research funding and some institutional collaboration.

Phase IV (SALTT V1.0.0 

Post-marketing surveillance after a treatment is approved and publicly available, to track long-term benefits and rare side effects in diverse populations.

2027-07-01 – ongoing

Prerequisites: 

• A market ready product: SALTT V1.0.0

To: 

• build subsequent versions: SALTT V2.0.0+

The final trial phase will be invoked when SALTT is market ready and is being distributed to a wider customer base.

There will now be some persuasive evidence that SALTT is viable and product launch will focus on the “beachhead”. Preparations will also begin on the PX market.

The questions become those of wider social impact, implications of roll-out, and economic considerations. Is it possible that the appalling figure of 1:7 with CMHCs, having to wait up to 18 months, be better managed with SALTT’s help?

Here research should be conducted entirely through independent contractors who will have jurisdiction on the methodology.

This phase will require research funding and some institutional collaboration, possibly at some governmental level. While SALTT will have gained some traction, sustainability is unlikely at this juncture.