Product & Strategy Memo — What the Christianity-Sex-Shame Research Tells Vela to Build

A senior product strategist's read on the research thread, focused on which findings should change Vela's product surface, which should not yet, and what the highest-leverage build is.

To: Mike (founder) and the Vela product / research team From: Product review Date: 2026-05-22 Re: The christianity-sex-shame research thread (literature review + literature map + corpus syntheses + intervention protocol v0.1) — product implications, defensibility, and the things we should not say in the UI

---

1. Bottom line up front

The research thread is Vela's strongest rendered initiative. It is also the thread that most directly maps to specific, shippable product behaviour. Four findings have enough evidentiary weight to change product surfaces immediately, one finding is the single most consequential design decision Vela has not yet faced, and the intervention protocol (theological coherence as RCT) is the right way to convert the research into a public-facing surface — but it is research-only, not a member-facing course, and the literature review's confusion of those two is a category error.

The four shippable findings, in priority order:

1. Moral incongruence is the dominant mechanism for religious-sexual distress, not behaviour frequency. This changes how Vela should handle high-religiosity participants encountering sexual content. The implementation is a participant-profile-conditioned content-warning architecture, not a uniform site-wide content warning.
2. The same religious tradition can produce shame or sanctification — pastoral framing decides which. This is the recruitment-message finding. Vela's member-recruitment copy, when it engages religious-formation framing at all, should lead with the integration / sanctification register, not the "deconstruction" register. The empirical evidence supports the integration framing.
3. High-religiosity + high-sexual-content-discomfort participants should experience the player differently. Not "differently" in the abstract — specifically, slower onset of explicit work, longer initial calibration windows, more text-and-context surrounding visual material, more opt-in granularity per session. The Reincarnation engine already models user state; this is a profile dimension it does not currently track.
4. The theological-coherence intervention is the most defensible /study research module Vela could ship in the next 12 months. It is also the most exposed to scrutiny if shipped sloppily. The right surface is: a research-only enrollment module on /study, IRB-cleared, pre-registered, with explicit consent for the tradition-specific intervention content, and no Vela-member-grade content-quality expectations layered on the curriculum.

The single most consequential design decision Vela has not yet faced: whether to ship a per-participant "religious-formation-aware" content gate on /play at all. This is not a small product call. Refusing to gate is a value commitment (we trust the user to manage their own consumption) with downstream user-harm exposure. Gating is a different value commitment (we adjust the experience by profile) with downstream over-protection / paternalism exposure. The research tells us the harm pathway is real; it does not tell us where Vela should land on the value question. §7 returns to this.

What to stop doing or never start: do not surface "this is the Augustinian shame inheritance" copy on the public surface, do not ship a per-name "religiosity risk badge" on participant profiles, do not let the literature review's language ("the doctrine is doing more causal work than the sex") leak into product copy. The research findings are real; the rhetorical version of them is not user-facing material.

---

2. What the research proves (product-facing)

These are the findings I would put weight on in product decisions, with the supporting literature.

2a. Moral incongruence is the proximate driver of religious-sexual distress

The single best-supported contemporary finding in this thread: distress about sexual material in religiously-formed individuals is driven by the gap between the material and the person's internalised moral standard, not by the material itself. Grubbs and Perry (2019) and the Grubbs et al. (2022) registered report are the load-bearing citations. Population-level confirmation: Grubbs, Kraus, Perry et al. (2020) on a nationally representative US sample. Global generalisation: Bőthe et al. (2026) cross-cultural test.

The product implication: two participants viewing the same image will have measurably different experiences depending on their religious-formation profile, holding the image constant. This is not a hypothesis. The literature is now strong enough to act on. The action is not to apply a uniform content warning, because uniform content warnings (a) annoy the modal user (b) provide no protection for the high-distress user, who is the one for whom the warning matters. The action is profile-conditioned adjustment — the topic of §3a.

2b. The double-edged pathway: same tradition, opposite outcomes

Leonhardt, Busby, and Willoughby (2020) is the cleanest empirical bridge between the historical-theological inheritance and the present-day measurement: religiosity predicts worse sexual outcomes through the sex-guilt pathway and better sexual outcomes through the sanctification pathway, simultaneously, in the same sample. Hernandez et al. (2011) and Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney (2018) establish that the sanctification effect is longitudinally stable, not a cross-sectional artifact.

The product implication: member-recruitment language that lands well on the sanctification pathway will not land on the sex-guilt pathway, and vice versa. This affects copy, photography, and the public surface's posture on religion. Vela has historically been agnostic-leaning in its public framing; the literature suggests that agnosticism is a missed positioning opportunity for the substantial fraction of the addressable market whose religious formation predisposes them toward sanctification framing. §3b returns to this.

2c. Purity culture is measurable, and its harms have a specific shape

Klein (2018) is the qualitative foundation. Ortiz et al. (2023) PCBS is the psychometric instrument. Sawatsky et al. (2025) on marital and sexual-pain outcomes in white Christian women (N = 5,489 snowball — see the peer-review memo for the sampling caveat) and Coates et al. (2026) on purity-culture exposure × trauma interaction are the most recent large-N + clinically-relevant findings.

The shape of the harm:

• Lower marital satisfaction
• Lower sexual satisfaction
• Greater sexual pain (specifically, in women)
• Higher rates of rape myth acceptance (Owens, Hall, & Anderson 2021)
• Particularly severe effects for sexual and gender minorities raised in evangelical contexts (Muskrat et al. 2025)
• Amplification of shame in trauma-survivor populations (Coates et al. 2026)
• The virginity-pledge cohort (Bearman & Brückner 2001; Brückner & Bearman 2005; Rosenbaum 2009): purity socialisation did not produce the behavioural change it promised but did produce shame, lower contraceptive use, and worse sexual-health outcomes.

The product implication: for the subset of Vela's addressable population who were raised in purity culture, the platform is meeting a population with a documented harm profile, not a generic adult population. This is a fact about the population, not a fact about Vela. The product question is whether Vela's existing surfaces — Reveal, the player, Mosaic, the magazine — are designed for this population's specifically-shaped sensitivities or whether they assume a less-formed baseline. The honest answer is the latter. §3 returns to this.

2d. Identity integration is protective

Anderson and Koc (2020) on religious gay men; the broader Lefevor et al. (2023) LDS work; Etengoff et al. (2024) Sexual Minority and Religious Identity Integration Scale: identity integration — the experience of one's religious and sexual identities as compatible rather than conflictual — is the strongest empirical proxy for the outcome the historical reclamation literature aims at. Achieved integration is associated with lower shame, lower guilt, and better sexual-functioning outcomes across multiple studies and populations.

The product implication: Vela's player and magazine could plausibly support an integration trajectory for religiously-formed members, where the trajectory is defined as movement toward measured-integration via SMRII or an analogous instrument. This is a research surface, not a member-facing course (see §4 on the intervention protocol). But the fact that integration is measurable and protective changes what /study can offer as a research participation: a longitudinal panel where members opt into integration-measurement over time is a credible and ethical research design that Vela could field today.

---

3. Concrete product recommendations

Prioritised. Each: ask, evidence, effort, risk.

P0 — Profile-conditioned content gating on /play

Ask: When a participant signals high religiosity and high sexual-content discomfort during onboarding (via PCBS-lite or Mosher-lite items, or via a self-report sliding scale), the player adjusts in three specific ways:

1. Slower onset. Initial calibration windows extended from the default ~10 ratings to ~30 before explicit work is introduced. The calibration material is non-explicit (landscape, portraiture, religious-art-history register) for the first 30 ratings.
2. Higher per-image opt-in granularity. Each piece tagged at content-warning level offers an opt-in card before display, not an opt-out. The card itself avoids shame-coded language ("are you sure?", "this contains…"). Use neutral descriptors ("nude figure study; mid-19th-century French academic register").
3. Visible exit, always. A persistent "exit this session" affordance present at every step, not hidden behind a menu. The exit does not log the participant out; it returns them to a non-evaluative surface (the magazine index, the museum-pilgrimage landing).

Evidence: Grubbs et al. (2022); the moral-incongruence registered report establishes that distress is moral-disapproval-mediated, not exposure-mediated. The right intervention is reducing the friction-to-exit and the salience of moral-incongruence triggers, not gating the content.

Effort: Medium. The Reincarnation engine already tracks user state and ratings. Adding a profile-dimension input (religious-formation discomfort) is a database column, an onboarding question, and a sequencing-engine input. The UI changes are scoped: ~3 weeks of front-end work plus the calibration-window logic.

Risk: Medium. If the gate is too aggressive, religiously-formed members feel patronised (a real harm — the literature on minority-stress and over-protection is consistent that signalling "you can't handle this" is itself harmful). If too loose, the gate provides no protection. Start with the slower-onset + opt-in-card combination, hold the persistent-exit affordance regardless of profile, and tune the gate threshold based on six-month participation data.

P0 — Sanctification-register surface in member recruitment

Ask: Vela's member-recruitment copy should explicitly support a sanctification-register entry point for the subset of the addressable population who would find that framing meaningful. Concretely:

1. The /study landing page acquires a single sentence acknowledging that Vela's research engages questions about beauty, desire, and the body that have been central to religious traditions for centuries, and that participation does not require — or exclude — any particular religious posture.
2. The membership tier copy removes any implicit "deconstructed / post-religious" register. Currently the public surface reads as if it assumes the reader has left religious formation behind. The data say roughly half of the addressable market has not.
3. A specific subpath at /welcome/sanctification or /welcome/integration (slug TBD) offers an entry point framed in sanctification language: beauty as participation, desire as integration, the body as the substrate for meaningful experience. The page does not proselytise for any tradition; it acknowledges that Vela's frame is hospitable to multiple traditions' ways of approaching the material.

Evidence: Hernandez et al. (2011), Hernandez-Kane & Mahoney (2018), Leonhardt et al. (2020). The sanctification pathway is real, longitudinally stable, and predicts better sexual outcomes in religiously-formed populations than the deconstruction pathway. Vela's current public framing leaves this segment of the addressable market on the table.

Effort: Small. A copy revision and one new public page. ~1 week of writing + design.

Risk: Low-medium. The risk is alienating the deconstruction-register audience by appearing to court the religious audience. The mitigation is the existing site framing remains the dominant register; sanctification is a door, not the house. The risk is also that the copy reads as marketing-religious-sympathy, which would be worse than not having it. The mitigation is that the copy lives in voice consistent with the magazine's editorial register (contemplative, specific, non-polemical) — which is already Vela's house style.

P1 — Theological-coherence intervention as /study research module

Ask: Implement the v0.1 intervention protocol (docs/research/protocols/theological-coherence-intervention-v0.1.md) as a research-only module accessible via /study. Specifically:

1. A landing page at /study/theological-coherence describing the research question, the protocol design, the participation expectations, and the explicit consent language for tradition-specific intervention content.
2. Enrollment flow that screens for eligibility (Mosher Sex Guilt ≥ 1 SD above adult mean per the protocol; tradition-of-formation; age 18+) and randomises eligible participants between the intervention arm and the active-comparison arm.
3. Curriculum delivery surface — the 8-week course material, the discussion prompts, the personal-audit worksheets, the facilitator-led session scheduling. The surface borrows infrastructure from Vela's existing player-and-rating architecture but is not the player: this is a longitudinal course with weekly material, not an open browsing experience.
4. Measurement battery delivered at T0, T1 (week 8), T2 (week 32) per the protocol.

Evidence: The K.5 research question is the single most actionable open question in the field. The literature review identifies this clearly. The Sellers (2017) clinical model and the Anderson & Koc (2020) integration-outcome work are the closest empirical predecessors; neither has tested a manualised theological-reframing intervention in a registered RCT.

Effort: Large. The engineering is moderate (curriculum-delivery surface, longitudinal measurement, randomisation logic) but the operational lift is substantial: IRB clearance, OSF pre-registration, clerical-partnership recruitment, facilitator training, participant compensation infrastructure, six-month follow-up coordination. The protocol estimates 18 months from finalisation to first publication; that estimate is approximately right.

Risk: High, in a way the literature review under-acknowledges. The peer-review memo's §3.5 identifies multiple specification weaknesses in the current v0.1 (manualised comparison arm, between-arm-not-pre-post primary contrast, tradition-stratified-arm power, consent-language specificity, IRB clearance). Vela should not ship this as a /study module until those are addressed. The module is the right thing to build; the v0.1 is not yet ready to be the thing built.

The other risk is content-quality: the curriculum's tradition-specific intervention content (Bolz-Weber, Coakley, Ruether, John Paul II's Theology of the Body, queer theology) is research-protocol content, not Vela-magazine-grade editorial. Vela's audience may experience the intervention curriculum as a register-mismatch with the rest of the platform. Mitigation: the module lives at /study/theological-coherence, branded as research participation, not at the magazine's editorial surface. The two registers must be visibly separated.

P1 — Religious-formation dimension in the Reincarnation engine

Ask: Add a religious-formation dimension to the participant profile that Reincarnation conditions on. Specifically: a PCBS-lite-derived "purity-culture internalisation" continuous variable + a binary "current religious practice (frequency-weighted)" variable + an optional sanctification-pathway score. These become inputs to the desire-vs-preference scoring and the pool-management logic.

Evidence: Farmer, Trapnell, & Meston (2009) and Ahrold et al. (2011) — religiosity dimensions predict sexual response patterns better than nominal denominational affiliation. The Vela engine is currently nominal-affiliation-blind, which is the right baseline, but the dimensional religious-formation variables explain measurable variance in response that the engine's compositional-feature decomposition currently treats as noise.

Effort: Small-medium. The data schema is straightforward; the engine logic addition is a profile-dimension reweighting. The harder lift is the onboarding-question design — how to ask about religious formation in a way that does not feel intrusive or surveillant.

Risk: Medium. The data collected is sensitive; the legal and ethical posture must be airtight (Vela already has the consent infrastructure for /study; this is a /study-grade question being asked of all participants, which raises the bar). The mitigation is opt-in collection with explicit consent and a clear data-handling policy. Participants who decline the dimension default to the engine's existing behaviour.

P2 — Sanctification / integration trajectory measurement as longitudinal-panel research

Ask: A research module that recruits religiously-formed members for a longitudinal panel (6 months, 12 months, 24 months) measuring SMRII (Etengoff et al. 2024), Mosher Sex Guilt, GMSEX, and PCBS at each wave. The participants engage Vela normally (player, magazine, Reveal); the panel measures whether engagement is associated with movement toward integration over time.

Evidence: Anderson & Koc (2020); the SMRII validation literature. Integration is measurable and protective. Whether Vela moves people toward integration is an empirical question the platform is uniquely positioned to test.

Effort: Medium. The measurement infrastructure is shared with the theological-coherence intervention module; the panel mechanics are different (no intervention, just observation). Recruitment is easier than the intervention arm because no curriculum delivery or facilitator network is required.

Risk: Low-medium. The panel cannot establish causation (no random assignment to Vela use), so the published version of the finding is correlational at best. This is acceptable for a Vela-side observational study but should be framed appropriately. Risk of attrition bias (members who feel less integrated drop out) is the standard longitudinal-panel concern; address with weighted analyses and explicit attrition reporting.

Do not ship (yet)

• A per-member "religious shame index" badge on profile pages. The data exist (in the longitudinal-panel design above) to compute such an index; making it user-facing is paternalistic and incentive-misaligned. The data should inform engine behaviour silently.
• A "deconstruction support" surface or "purity-culture recovery" course as Vela-branded content. The reclamation literature (Bolz-Weber, Sellers, Ruether) is theoretically interesting but the outcome evidence for any specific reclamation intervention does not yet exist outside the theological-coherence RCT. Vela should not commercialise a reclamation product on the basis of uncontrolled evidence.
• Content copy that explicitly names the Augustine-as-shame-inheritance narrative on the public surface. The historical claim is contested (peer-review memo §3.4); the rhetorical version is editorialised; placing it on /welcome or in member-recruitment language would invite criticism Vela cannot defend in the consumer register.
• Theological diagnosis in any participant communication. The intervention protocol's content-warning language ("this material may activate prior religious formation around concupiscence") is appropriate to the research module's consent flow; it is not appropriate to the standard Vela player. The line between informing and labelling is load-bearing.

---

4. The intervention protocol — research-only, not member-facing

The literature review's downstream-artifacts table names "Vela product surface (course or app) if evidence supports scaling" as a deliverable of the K.5 research program. This is a category error and should be removed.

The intervention protocol is, properly executed, a registered RCT that produces a peer-reviewed publication establishing whether theological reframing reduces sex-guilt-mediated shame in religiously-formed adults. The publication is the deliverable. The protocol is research instrumentation, not a member-facing product.

Three reasons it should not become a Vela-branded course:

1. Tradition-specific intervention content cannot be Vela's editorial responsibility. The Catholic/Orthodox arm's curriculum cites John Paul II's Theology of the Body and Coakley's God, Sexuality, and the Self. The evangelical arm cites Bolz-Weber's Shameless. The queer-affirming arm cites Ruether and queer theology. These are real theological positions held by real people with real authority within their traditions. Vela does not have a theological-editorial board capable of representing these traditions credibly under its own brand. The protocol acknowledges this in passing — "the theological content must be owned by the tradition-specific facilitators" — and Vela should not muddy that ownership by branding the curriculum.

2. The success criterion (Cohen's d ≥ 0.40 on Mosher Sex Guilt) is an effect-size standard appropriate for IRB-cleared research; it is not the bar a paying customer would expect from a Vela-branded course. Members who pay for a Vela course expect Vela-grade editorial: prose, imagery, structure, voice. Intervention curricula are not Vela-grade editorial. Conflating the two damages both.

3. The consent posture is different. Research participants consent to randomisation between intervention and active-comparison; paying customers do not. If Vela ships the intervention as a member course, the active-comparison arm has nowhere to live, and the RCT design collapses.

The right move: ship the intervention as research-only via /study. If it works, the publication is the Vela contribution. Downstream of the publication, individual clergy, therapists, and existing curriculum networks (Sellers, Bolz-Weber, Coakley) can adopt the validated curriculum without Vela needing to be the brand on the course. Vela's role is the rigorous test, not the consumer product.

This is also a more defensible posture in the peer-review register: the literature review's claim that Vela is doing rigorous bridge work is much more defensible when the deliverable is a peer-reviewed RCT publication than when it is a $99 member course.

---

5. Moat analysis

Could a competitor reproduce this thread in a weekend? The honest answer: no — but not because the thread is uncopyable. Because no competitor has any incentive to.

What is not a moat:

• The historical-theological backbone (Brown, Harper, Brundage, MacCulloch, O'Donnell — all publicly available secondary sources; the synthesis is consensus-position).
• The empirical psychology literature (Grubbs, Pargament, Mahoney, Ortiz, Sawatsky — all peer-reviewed, all open-access or accessible via standard library channels).
• The literature-mapping methodology (the two-LLM cross-validation procedure is interesting but reproducible in 1-2 weeks by anyone with reasonable LLM access; see the engineering critique for what the better version of the procedure would look like).
• The intervention-protocol design (the v0.1 is a literature-derived design; any competent clinical researcher with the same lit-review could produce a comparable protocol).

What is a moat, in descending order:

1. The platform-research integration. Vela has a participant base that engages visual material and is willing to participate in research; the research questions can be tested in situ in a way no academic lab can match. The theological-coherence intervention, if it ships at /study, would be the first registered RCT in this space with a population recruited through a working consumer surface rather than a Prolific panel or a campus clinic. This is the moat. It compounds with every wave of participant data the platform collects.
2. The longitudinal-panel infrastructure. §3 P2 above. Most researchers in this space cannot run a 24-month panel; Vela's member retention model can. This produces evidence no academic group can produce.
3. The Vela editorial-and-research register fit. The audience that comes to Vela for the magazine is plausibly the audience for which the research questions are also live questions about their own lives. This is not a moat against an Anthropic-funded research initiative or a major university lab; it is a moat against the marketing-flavored "religion and sex" content products that already exist (sex-positive Christian podcasts, deconstruction-focused Substacks).
4. The dual-axis editorial coverage. Vela can cover both the historical-theological side (magazine essays) and the empirical-research side (research surface) with shared voice. Few platforms attempt this. The audience that values one usually does not value the other; the audience that values both is small but disproportionately influential.

What we should stop pretending is a moat: the literature review itself as a publishable contribution (peer-review memo's option C is the most novel framing; the rest is consensus synthesis), the intervention protocol design (any competent researcher could reproduce it), the literature map (citation accretion at a scale that is impressive but not unique to Vela).

Net: the moat is the platform's ability to test what the research suggests, in a population that has consented to participate, with longitudinal follow-up academic labs cannot match. The moat is not the synthesis. Underclaim publicly on the synthesis; overdeliver on the platform-research integration.

---

6. Red flags / over-claims

I was asked to find problems. Here they are, in descending severity.

6a. "The doctrine is doing more causal work than the sex"

The public introduction's claim — "the shame is coming from inside the house. The theology has been internalised as a standard against which all behaviour is measured and found wanting" — is the manuscript's most quotable line. It is also the line most likely to leak into marketing copy and then be dismantled by anyone who reads the Grubbs registered report carefully.

The registered report establishes that moral disapproval predicts perceived addiction-like appraisal of pornography use. It does not establish that "the theology is doing more causal work than the sex" in any general sense. The slippage is the public introduction's, not the literature review's; the literature review is more careful. Whoever writes the consumer-facing copy must use the careful version. "Moral disapproval predicts how distressed people feel about their pornography use, even controlling for how much they use" is the defensible sentence. The rhetorical version is not.

6b. The Augustine-as-shame-inheritance narrative is contested by the manuscript's own evidence

The public introduction leans heavily on the framing that Augustine has been blamed for things he did not say, and the popular caricature is wrong. The literature review (§2.2) makes the same case more carefully. But the literature map's A14 row (Burrus 2008) explicitly complicates this: shame did not disappear from Christian moral psychology, it was transformed and re-grounded. The Augustinian-distortion narrative the manuscript favours is one reading; the Burrus complication is another.

For consumer copy, the manuscript should not lean on either reading. The historical-theological scholarship is contested enough that consumer-facing claims about "what Augustine actually said" invite scholarly correction. The defensible posture is "the tradition is more complicated than the caricature, and this is one of the things Vela's research engages." The polemical posture ("Augustine has been blamed for things he didn't say") invites pushback the consumer surface cannot defend.

6c. The "moral incongruence" finding may not generalise to figurative art

All the major moral-incongruence work (Grubbs lab) measures self-reported distress about pornography use. Pornography is a specific category with specific cultural meaning. Vela's content is not pornography — it is fine art figurative work, with explicit content present but framed within an editorial and museum register.

Whether the moral-incongruence mechanism extends from pornography to fine art figurative work is an empirical question that has not been tested, and the manuscript does not flag this. The literature review's downstream-artifacts table treats the moral-incongruence framework as portable to Vela's content; it may not be. The Vela-side observational study would be: does PCBS-high participation correlate with within-session exit on explicit material vs. on neutral content, controlling for the content's compositional features? This is testable on the existing telemetry. It has not been tested.

Until it is, treating moral-incongruence as the load-bearing mechanism for Vela's user experience is an extrapolation from an adjacent literature.

6d. The literature review's tone toward purity culture is one-directional

The Klein-Klein-Klein register — purity culture as harm, deconstruction as restoration — is the dominant tone in §4. The literature does support a harm finding. It also includes evidence (the sanctification pathway; the LDS work showing sexual satisfaction tied strongly to relational factors even in conservative-religious contexts; the Catholic-vs-Protestant guilt comparison in Regnerus 2007 showing more nuance than the deconstruction register suggests) that the picture is more complex than "purity culture bad." The literature review acknowledges this but the tonal balance leans toward harm. The product implication is that consumer copy must be substantially more balanced than the literature review's tone, because a substantial fraction of Vela's addressable audience is currently inside purity-formed traditions and may experience the deconstruction-register copy as adversarial.

6e. The intervention protocol's funding numbers are research-IRB numbers, not commercial numbers

The protocol estimates $17,000–20,000 for the pilot phase. This is a defensible IRB-cleared-research budget. It is not the budget for shipping a Vela-branded course. The conflation in the literature review's downstream-artifacts table is concerning because it suggests the protocol authors have not separated the two budgets in their thinking. The pilot RCT budget and the shippable-product budget are an order of magnitude apart, and the literature review should not gesture at the commercial path without engaging this.

6f. Effect sizes are not translated into participant-experience terms

The literature review reports correlations and effect sizes (e.g., "η²=0.63 for rarity as moderator of cultural impact" — wait, that's from a different thread; the equivalent here is the Coates et al. p = 0.00083, and the Sawatsky et al. associations) without translating them into participant-experience units. What does a 1-SD-higher PCBS score translate to in terms of "fraction of /play sessions terminated early at a content-warning gate"? What does the sanctification-pathway effect on sexual satisfaction (Hernandez et al. 2011) translate to in terms of "marital-satisfaction units a Vela member could plausibly experience over 6 months of engagement"?

These translations are not available in the literature; they would be Vela-side empirical work. Until they exist, the product implications drawn from the published effect sizes are aspirational, not quantified. The first three months of the longitudinal-panel research (§3 P2) would produce them.

---

7. The hard decision: gating vs. not

Section 1 named the question I think Vela has not yet faced squarely. I want to come back to it.

The research thread tells Vela that some fraction of its participants — religiously formed, high in moral-disapproval, low in identity integration — will experience the platform's explicit content as distressing in ways the rest of the participant population does not. The distress is moral-incongruence-mediated; it is real; it is measurable; it is not eliminated by content warnings or by participant self-management because the trigger is the gap between the content and the participant's internalised standard, not the content itself.

Two positions are coherent in response:

Position A: Vela should adjust the experience for these participants (the §3 P0 recommendation). The research supports this; the cost is engineering and onboarding-question design; the risk is paternalism and over-protection. This is the position I have been arguing.

Position B: Vela should not adjust the experience. The research does not give Vela a license to label users with a "religiously-formed shame profile" and treat them differently from other adult users. Adults consent to the platform; the platform meets them where they are; the consent is the user's, not the platform's. The risk is real distress in a measurable subset of the user base; the value commitment is that adult agency outweighs the platform's discomfort with that distress.

Both positions are defensible. The choice between them is a value commitment Vela has not yet made publicly, and it is not the research thread's job to make it. The research describes the mechanism; the product makes the call.

My recommendation in §3 leans toward Position A because the engineering is tractable and the harm pathway is documented. But Position B is the honest alternative and has its own integrity. The worst outcome is the current default: no adjustment, no acknowledgement of the documented harm pathway, no public statement of the value commitment. That is implicit Position B without the courage of Position B's argument.

The product call is yours. This memo can tell you what the research supports; it cannot tell you what Vela's posture toward religiously-formed members should be.

---

8. Open questions for the founder

1. The gate question (§7). Do you want Vela to ship Position A, Position B, or something explicitly intermediate (e.g., a participant-controlled adjustment without profile-based defaulting)? This is the single most consequential product call in the thread.
2. The sanctification-register recruitment surface (§3 P0). Are you willing to engage religious-formation framing in member-recruitment copy at all, knowing that doing so risks the perception of taking sides? Vela's existing public posture is agnostic-leaning; the research suggests this leaves market value on the table; the cultural risk is real. How aggressive do you want to be?
3. The intervention protocol shipping path (§4). Is /study/theological-coherence a near-term build (12 months) or a longer-term build (24+ months) given the IRB / pre-registration / clerical-partnership lift? The literature review treats it as in-flight; it is in-design. The work to get to in-flight is substantial.
4. The PCBS-lite onboarding question (§3 P1). Are you willing to ask all participants — not just /study enrollees — about religious formation as a profile dimension, or do you want to restrict it to opt-in via /study? The data quality is much better with universal collection; the consent posture is much cleaner with /study-only collection.
5. The reclamation-product line (§3 do-not-ship). The literature has enough qualitative and theoretical material that a Vela-branded "deconstructing purity culture" course is technically buildable. I recommend against. Do you want to revisit this, or accept the do-not-ship?
6. The audience-overlap question. The Christianity-sex-shame thread and the emotion thread (which has displaced Christianity as site-priority per the project memory) overlap substantially in the addressable population. Where do you want the surface integration to happen? A single /research/being-human umbrella with both threads as children is one option; keeping them separate is another. The product surface should reflect whichever choice you make.
7. What is the publication path for the literature review itself? The peer-review memo lays out three venue options (psychology of religion / history of Christianity / methods paper). Each requires different additional work. Do you want the literature review to actually be submitted somewhere, or is it serving its purpose as an internal program document?

---

Net recommendation: ship the four high-evidence product surfaces (P0 profile-conditioned gating, P0 sanctification-register recruitment surface, P1 theological-coherence intervention as /study-research-only, P1 religious-formation dimension in the engine), do not ship the deconstruction-product line, separate the research deliverable from the consumer deliverable, and make the §7 value commitment publicly. The research thread is real; the product surfaces it suggests are real; the rhetorical version of the research is not consumer-facing material.