Useful research, connected to things people can try.
Brali does not collect papers for decoration. Research can strengthen a hack, challenge an old claim, suggest a new protocol, or show that something should stay uncertain.
Two 2026 systematic reviews strengthen the acute metabolic case for interrupting prolonged sitting with actual movement. The evidence supports the move, not a universal twenty-minute office commandment.
Active recall remains useful for retention. Two 2026 studies show why Brali now separates tested-material memory, later learning, and actual application instead of calling all of them one testing effect.
A 2026 meta-analysis links greater sleep variability with poorer cognitive performance. Brali keeps it as a research signal, not a causal sleep prescription.
Retrieval can improve AI answers, but weak retrieval and source selection can also make them worse. Better data still needs better evaluation.
Living research pipeline
Brali keeps the research process as data instead of hiding it inside one prompt.
Search lenses:research-queries.json maps maintained scholarly queries to Domains, Topics, Methods, and Lenses.
Discovery queue: the weekly Research Scout deduplicates recent scholarly metadata into research-candidates.json.
Evidence decision: an Evidence Reviewer reads the actual source and records the narrow claim it supports, challenges, or fails to support in evidence-decisions.json.
Library change: only then can a candidate strengthen an existing hack, propose a new atomic hack, or become part of an executable protocol.
Search metadata is useful for discovery, not for conclusions. A title can sound relevant while the population, intervention, outcome, effect size, or limitations say something much narrower. Candidate records therefore cannot receive Brali's reviewed evidence state without an explicit source review and evidence decision.
What belongs here
Evidence notes: check an idea against research and explain what the sources do and do not support.
Trend notes: watch useful developments in behavior change, learning, wellbeing, productivity, and AI-assisted tools.
Open questions: record questions that could improve the library, recommendations, evidence model, protocols, or translations.
Contradictions: record good evidence that challenges a popular hack instead of quietly ignoring it.
Current questions
Which small practices are most useful in everyday life?
Which old Brali hacks should be removed, narrowed, or merged?
Which growth-gap Topics have enough intervention evidence to justify a protocol?
Which hacks combine naturally into protocols rather than separate articles?
How can Brali show evidence without making the library hard to read?
How can an AI agent recommend a protocol without overstating confidence?
How should one hack or protocol stay consistent across several languages?
From research to the library
A research note or candidate does not automatically become a trusted protocol. It can improve an existing hack, add or remove a claim, change an evidence state after review, create a new atomic hack proposal, suggest a protocol composed from existing actions, become a challenge-existing correction that narrows a claim, or remain a watch decision when the evidence is informative but not yet actionable.