Honest measurement, and a system you can actually run
Understand what limits your mental performance and build a practical system around it — measured against yourself, explained honestly, and never dressed up as medicine.
Brainmaxing is a personal cognitive-performance system. You arrive, watch a head open into a brain, answer six questions, and get a starting point: the one area among focus, memory, learning, cognitive control, recovery and environment that is most likely to repay attention first, and a realistic seven-day protocol for it.
That is the free part, and it stays free. What is being built around it is a way to keep going — objective tasks with their timing rules published, practice that is genuinely hard, a curriculum in how to think rather than what to think, food and supplements with a grade attached to every claim, and your own trajectory over time.
The category's biggest lesson was a two-million-dollar one
In 2016 the largest brand in brain training paid two million dollars to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it had claimed its games improve performance at work and at school and delay age-related decline — without, the complaint said, the science to back up its advertising. The settlement also required it to make cancellation easy and to stop citing testimonials it had solicited through prize contests without disclosing them.
Every claim in that complaint is a claim this product is structurally forbidden to make. Not discouraged from making: forbidden, in a written constraint that a test refuses to let pass into the codebase, on a surface where the fine print would not have travelled with the claim anyway.
That constraint reads like a handicap and is the opposite. Selling an outcome is the one position in this category a regulator can attack and a sceptical reader can dismiss. Selling honest measurement, visible provenance and thinking skills is not.
Who this is for, and who it is not for
It is built for adults who want to focus, study, learn and follow through better, and who have already consumed enough productivity content to be tired of it — students, knowledge workers, founders, developers, freelancers, people making things.
It is for adults only. It is not for anyone looking for a diagnosis, a treatment, or a substitute for talking to a clinician about something that is worrying them, and it says so on every surface where the question could reasonably arise.
How it is made
It is a small operation: one owner, working with a set of software agents that write, review and test the code under a written protocol. The anatomy you scroll through is authored in Blender through its Python interface and exported as a standard 3D format, not licensed from a stock library, which is why the regions on screen match the names the annotations use. It is a map drawn for explanation, not a scan of anybody.
The research notes on this site are drafted by an agent, with sources and an evidence grade on every claim, and are labelled unreviewed until the owner has read them. That label is data attached to the article rather than decoration on the page, and it comes off one article at a time, on review, not in a batch.
Five rules the product is held to
Every number says where it came from. A figure derived from what you told us, a figure produced by a timed task and a figure produced by your own practice are three different kinds of thing, they are stored as three different kinds of thing, and a derived value is never presented as stronger than the weakest thing it was derived from.
Nothing is compared to a population that is not named. There are no percentiles here, because there is no norming sample behind them, and a percentile without its sample is a number wearing a costume.
Every health or nutrition claim carries a grade that cannot be read apart from it. The grade lives in the same row as the claim, its population and its preparation — not in a badge at the top of the page, where a reader would take the strongest claim's grade for the whole article's.
Practice trains the task it trains. A game's score is a record of that game, said in one line under the game, every time.
Prices come from configuration and are never written into a page. Your card number and security code go from your browser to the payment provider and never pass through our servers; so that your plan page can show which card is on file, we keep the card's brand, its last four digits and its expiry, never the number. No step of any protocol requires a purchase.
What is not known, and is not going to be implied
The Snapshot is not a measurement. Six self-report questions produce a relative emphasis and never a score, a level or a rank. It is not diagnostic, it is not medical, and it is not an intelligence measure of any kind.
The anatomy on screen is an anatomical map built for explanation. It is identical for every visitor, it is never your tissue, and a result may decide which region is lit but never how much of anything a region is supposed to represent.
There is no evidence that using this product changes any outcome in your life, and none is claimed. If that evidence ever exists it will be a study of this product, published with its method, and until then the absence is stated rather than filled with an implication.
Where a fact is not yet known — a launch date, a final price, whether a plan will include a particular thing — this site says so instead of guessing. Several sentences on the pricing page exist for exactly that reason.
The evidence policy, in four words
Measured, confirmed, inferred, withdrawn. Every internal claim about this product carries one of those four tiers: measured means a number reproducible with one command, confirmed means directly visible in a committed artefact, inferred means somebody reasoned to it and it has not been checked, and withdrawn means it was asserted and then falsified — kept on the record so nobody raises it again.
The tier that earns its place is the third one. Two of this project's first six conclusions about its own defects were wrong, both were plausible, and both were caught once measured, precisely because “inferred” had been made visible as something different from “established”.
The same discipline is what produces the published notes on this site. A claim is graded per outcome, per population and per preparation; the strongest contradicting evidence is filled in on every card; and where the honest verdict is that a thing does not work, that is the article rather than a reason not to write one.
The six areas, every published weight, and where the method stops.
The evidence policy above, applied — sources and grades on every claim.
What is collected, what is not, and where your answers go.
The free part, and the fastest way to see whether any of this is for you.