Psychedelic operations + provider due diligence · Independent
Psych Ops Directory + Source Watch
Live operational directory · v6 August 2026
Help psychedelic organizations discover operational providers and conduct a structured first-pass diligence review without mistaking directory inclusion for verification.
Controlled visual demonstration
Current live interface
This sandboxed preview shows the current public interface. Open the full site to use the build in its intended window.
What I noticed
The ecosystem’s legal, financial, clinical, insurance, staffing, and research providers are distributed across fields and jurisdictions. A vendor list alone does not help a buyer distinguish documented field presence from current licensure, quality, independence, privacy posture, or organizational fit.
What I researched
The current directory contains 178 listings across twenty-three categories and three public-evidence tiers. The v6 diligence model is informed by current official license and program resources from Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico and by NIST’s supplier due-diligence approach. The companion Source Watch separates government-domain discovery from secondary field sources.
What exists
A searchable directory with category filters, comparisons, CSV export, submissions, correction flags, and a private browser-only due-diligence workspace covering entity standing, licensure, insurance, conflicts, privacy and security, references and complaints, and commercial terms. Users can export a Markdown evidence packet. A companion source watch exposes sweep state and direct source links while labeling every discovery an unreviewed lead.
Who it serves
Psychedelic organizations, operators, researchers, clinicians, founders, and professional-service buyers evaluating operational partners.
What it demonstrates
Ecosystem taxonomy, evidence-model design, provider-diligence workflows, provenance-aware monitoring, local-first state, and operational knowledge architecture.
Current evidence
The canonical directory returned HTTP 200 after production deployment and its live API returned 178 records. Search, comparison, CSV, submissions, flags, the diligence workspace, local note persistence, and Markdown export remain available. The companion API returned six completed source categories; the interface has no fallback factual records, filters official-jurisdiction views to government domains, and labels results as unreviewed leads. Directory tiers establish public evidence of field presence only—not endorsement, licensure, safety, quality, financial stability, or fit. Users must verify directly with regulators and providers.
Verified build record
What is actually running, and what it is not.
LiveLive · 175 listings, links checked 29 August 2026, records reviewed 20 August 2026
The problem. Directories in an emerging regulated field are read as endorsements. Whoever assembles one is assumed to have vetted licensure, quality and financial stability, and almost never has.
What it does. Indexes 175 organisations with a category, a subcategory, a link status and a record-review date. Pricing, promotional claims, credentials, rankings and detailed service descriptions are deliberately withheld until claim-level provenance exists to support them. The API states the count, the review dates and the withheld fields; the current sweep flags 14 listings whose links no longer resolve.
Built on. A static front end over a serverless listings endpoint with a static fallback, plus a contract test suite. Methodology and corrections pages ship with it.
What it does not establish. Inclusion is not vetting, endorsement, licensure verification, or any finding about quality, safety, financial stability or legal compliance.
This record is generated from the same inventory as the complete build index: the production URL was checked at the last regeneration, and the status line above repeats what the build reports about itself rather than restating an intention.