Skip to content

PUBLIC EVIDENCE REGISTER · PRELAUNCH-0.1

WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTSFOR THE ROADMAN APP?

This register separates research that informs the product from evidence produced by the product. It also records claims Roadman has not made, so an absence of evidence cannot be mistaken for a favourable result.

Current answer

Roadman's cycling strength and recovery app has a published evidence rationale, decision methodology and testing protocol, but it does not yet have a public product-effectiveness result. No current Roadman claim says that the app improves cycling performance, measures recovery, prevents injury, diagnoses illness or provides medical clearance.

App early access →How Roadman will test it →Machine-readable evidence →

Register version

prelaunch-0.1

Public product results

0

Effectiveness established

No

Last reviewed

2026-09-01

CLAIM-BY-CLAIM STATUS

WHAT IS KNOWN, AND WHAT IS NOT.

Can strength training support endurance cyclists?

External evidence informs the rationale

A cyclist-specific systematic review and meta-analysis reports potential performance benefits from heavy strength training while grading the certainty as low and not establishing one universal protocol.

This supports

Building a bounded cyclist-specific strength feature and testing the exact implementation.

This does not support

That Roadman's app, programme structure or readiness adjustments improve performance.

Evidence needed next

Product-specific rule verification, use data and an appropriately designed outcome study.

Inspect source →

Are the app's training decisions specified and inspectable?

Specified; no public verification result yet

Roadman has published a versioned four-stage decision policy, six invariant guardrails and input-by-input limits.

This supports

Auditing a future app build against a stable public specification.

This does not support

That the product always follows the policy or that the policy produces better outcomes.

Evidence needed next

A build-specific rule-verification report with scenarios, pass/fail counts and unresolved failures.

Inspect source →

Can intended riders use and understand the app?

No public product result

No closed-beta usability result has been published.

This supports

No product-usability claim yet.

This does not support

Claims about ease of use, comprehension, adherence, engagement or rider satisfaction.

Evidence needed next

Report invited, activated and analysed denominators, task completion, comprehension, attrition and sampling limits.

Inspect source →

Do qualified reviewers agree with app decisions?

No public product result

No coach-review agreement study or result has been published.

This supports

No reviewer-agreement claim yet.

This does not support

Claims that prescriptions are coach-equivalent, optimal or medically safe.

Evidence needed next

A pre-specified review sample with reviewer roles, agreement definition, raw counts, uncertainty and material disagreement cases.

Inspect source →

Does the app improve strength or cycling performance?

No public product result

No prospective Roadman product-outcome study has been published.

This supports

No product-effectiveness claim yet.

This does not support

Claims that the app increases FTP, power, speed, strength, durability or event performance.

Evidence needed next

A pre-specified prospective study and, for a causal claim, an appropriate comparator design with effect estimates and uncertainty.

Inspect source →

Does the app measure or diagnose recovery?

Claim not made

Sleep, energy, soreness, stress and recent training are treated as decision context, not a direct recovery measurement or diagnosis.

This supports

A conservative check that may hold, reduce, substitute or stop planned strength work.

This does not support

A validated recovery score, biological readiness measurement, illness diagnosis or universal train-or-rest threshold.

Evidence needed next

Any future measurement claim would require a separately specified construct, reference, validation population and error analysis.

Inspect source →Inspect source →Inspect source →

Does the app prevent injury or provide medical clearance?

Claim not made

Pain, concerning symptoms and illness concerns are exit conditions from automated training clearance.

This supports

Stopping or escalating when a rider's report is outside the product's training-decision boundary.

This does not support

Injury prevention, injury diagnosis, rehabilitation, medical advice or clearance to train.

Evidence needed next

These claims remain outside the stated intended use of the prelaunch product.

Inspect source →

PRODUCT REPORTING QUEUE

NO RESULT BEFORE THE RESULT EXISTS.

Pending means no result has been published. “Not scheduled” is deliberate: Roadman will not invent a study date to make the prelaunch evidence position look more mature.

ReportStatusScheduled dateResultProtocol
Decision-rule verification recordpendingNot announcedNo public resultView method →
Closed-beta usability reportpendingNot announcedNo public resultView method →
Coach-review agreement reportpendingNot announcedNo public resultView method →
Prospective real-world pilotnot-scheduledNot announcedNo public resultView method →
Comparative effectiveness studynot-scheduledNot announcedNo public resultView method →

TWO DIFFERENT EVIDENCE JOBS

A RATIONALE IS NOT A RESULT.

Published sport science can justify testing a product idea and constrain its rules. Only product-specific evaluation can show how a particular Roadman build behaves. Even then, the design determines whether a result describes usability, association or effectiveness.

External evidence

Informs why a feature exists, which inputs deserve caution and which claims remain out of bounds.

Roadman product evidence

Must identify the build, policy version, population, exposure, denominators, missing data and design before supporting a product claim.

Decision methodology →Testing standard →Strength evidence guide →