← What I found · the finding
Stress while sitting still
My extension · Beyond the guide Rest-stress with a motion filter
What the guide says Condition the rest-stress signal on low concurrent motion, to separate true sympathetic arousal at rest from movement artefact. Elevated before crashes.
What showed up in the data
This is my own refinement of one of Wiggers' ideas, not a claim of hers, which is why it now sits on Beyond the guide. She watches for stress that will not come down at rest; I added a filter that throws out the minutes where I was actually moving, so a high reading means real arousal and not motion. I did check it against crashes. After filtering to genuinely low-motion rest, the sample fell to nine crashes, one short of the ten I had committed to in advance as the floor for a callable result. So there is no crash verdict here: not a yes, not a no.
How we tested it
The hypothesis was pre-registered with a minimum sample (at least ten crashes) fixed before the run, precisely so an underpowered cell couldn't later be spun into a finding. When it landed at nine, the rule held: report it as inconclusive rather than reach for a number the data can't support.
What it means, and what it doesn't
- Why it's on Beyond the guide
The rest-stress idea is Wiggers'; the motion filter on top of it is mine. That makes it an extension of her guide, not a part of it, so it lives on the beyond-the-guide layer with my other extensions, held apart from the patterns she actually names.
- What 'inconclusive' means here
It's a real outcome, not a gap or a failure. The signal might well be there; we simply don't have enough crashes (in a body that, encouragingly, now crashes rarely) to tell either way.
- What happens next
It may get another pass as more data accrues, or with a different way of isolating rest. Until then it stays open, which is itself a small, good sign about how few crashes there are to count.
Go deeper
The short version is above. These go to the method and the raw research.