May Practice Frameworks

I was trained to run the software.

My certification taught me to operate an assessment without teaching me what a good deal of it actually meant, so I took it apart and rebuilt it. What came out of that is in peer review with other practitioners now.

My brain works in patterns, so understanding a thing usually means dismantling it.

I came into my certification with five years of health coaching and gut restoration behind me, so a good deal of it clicked for me in a way it did not for everyone. I could explain some of what the assessment turned up. Other connections surprised me every time I found one, and the further I dug the more I noticed what had never been taught at all.

What I could see around me was worse. Practitioners qualified to run the assessment and stuck the moment a client asked what a score meant. A number you cannot interpret is not a finding, and that gap is where cases get lost.

I took the assessment apart. Every symptom marker was re-sourced to primary literature, some were cut, some were added, the wording was rewritten to be answerable by somebody who is guarding, which meant it had to be trauma informed, and the whole thing was restructured around what a practitioner actually has to decide next.

That work became the Living History Health Assessment and the Foundational Nutrition Assessment. Everything else sits on top of them.

One dataset, collected once.

A client fills in two things. An intake carrying fixed and slow-moving history, medications and exposures, and a symptom assessment running 354 questions across 21 body systems. Nothing downstream asks for either of them again.

Three practitioner assessments read that same data through different lenses. Terrain and timeline sets depth and root focus. Adaptive state sets pacing and dose. Advanced functional sets sequencing and finds blockers.

The distinction that matters is this. The assessment sections route, and the practitioner layer modifies. A section lighting up points at specific tools. The three assessments change how hard and in what order you pull the levers, and they do not change which lever. Pacing is a separate decision from direction, and treating the two as one thing is where a great deal of otherwise-good practice comes apart.

A contraindications gate sits across all of it. Nothing reaches an output without being checked against the medications and conditions already collected at intake.

The decisions underneath it.

No live AI in the clinical path. The system is deterministic. The same inputs produce the same outputs every time, and any output traces back to the rule that produced it. Something that answers differently on any given weekday is not a clinical tool.

Trauma-informed wording as a clinical decision rather than a courtesy. A guarded client hands you a guarded picture, and you will spend three months treating something that was never the problem. Every question was written to be answerable by somebody who has reasons not to answer.

Disagreements left standing. Where good evidence points two ways, both directions stay in the material. That usually means the effect is real in some people and absent in others, which is where bioindividuality actually lives rather than where it gets invoked.

Fear is not a teaching tool. A practitioner who reads a symptom guide cover to cover can come away convinced everything is a threat, and then hand that to his clients. Give a woman a long enough list of what is harming her and she will either give up or start optimizing, and the optimizing becomes the illness. The material is written to prevent that rather than to impress you with it.

Where it actually is.

In peer review with other practitioners, and not for sale.

Finished: the intake, the assessment, and the follow-up. Built and running: the three practitioner assessments and the education modules. Incomplete: six nutrient and amino acid tools. In progress: the contraindications gate. Pending: the plain-language layer that turns a practitioner output into something a client can read without being frightened by it.

A deeper sleep assessment, a household and kitchen assessment, and a constitutional assessment are on the list and have not been started. Blood chemistry interpretation sits under its own menu, PHI-free, as Blood Chemistry Lite and Blood Chemistry Plus.

I would rather tell you that than show you a demo.

Who it is for.

Practitioner-level clinical tools go to practitioner-level training. NTP certification or higher reaches the assessment and reasoning layer. Coaches and nutrition professionals working below that scope get a track built for what they actually do, which is a different thing rather than a lesser version of the same thing.

That line is not gatekeeping for its own sake. A clinical assessment in the hands of somebody without the scope to act on it produces confident wrong answers, and the person who pays for that is the client.

Access is reviewed by hand for the same reason. It places people where they can work properly instead of leaving them to guess.

The waitlist.

No dates. When there is something real to show you, you will hear from me, and not before.

The email address is the least useful thing on this form. If you tell me where your own process actually breaks down, that goes considerably further.

Living History Health Assessment™, Foundational Nutrition Assessment™ and May Practice Frameworks™ are trademarks of May Creative and Consulting LLC.

All materials are protected intellectual property. Redistribution, reproduction, password sharing, or use in teaching or paid programs without written permission is prohibited.