Jeff Smith, and the rules he built CHRP under.

Jeff Smith is the founder of CHRP, the company behind Emotional Performance Intelligence, and he defined that category — the structured read of how a person is doing, built from behavior they already produce.

CHRP's marks are held by Journey One LLC. Beyond that, this page stays deliberately thin on biography, because a founder story is the easiest thing on a website to inflate and the hardest for a reader to check. What follows instead is the part that can be checked: the standing decisions that constrain what CHRP is allowed to claim, each one owned, dated, and carrying the condition under which it may be reopened.

Seven positions govern CHRP, and the first one governs the rest: truth before optimization. Each is recorded as a decision with an owner and a stated condition for changing it, so none of them can quietly drift.

The reason they are written down is unglamorous. A company that has not recorded its calls will re-litigate them every few months, and will eventually take the easy version of a claim because nobody remembers why the hard version was chosen.

Because it is not one, and the label would let CHRP borrow a credibility it has not earned. CHRP does not diagnose, treat, or cure anything, and calling a performance tool a mental health tool invites people to use it for something it cannot do.

The refusal costs something. “Mental health” is a larger search market and an easier story to tell a buyer. Naming a new category is slower than joining an established one. That trade is made deliberately: the alternative is a person in real difficulty reaching for a music app instead of a clinician, which is a failure no conversion rate offsets.

The same logic runs the other way. CHRP does not promise anyone a win, a medal, or a measurable edge over a rival, because the science does not support it and CHRP's own science page says so plainly. A claim your own evidence page contradicts is not a positioning problem; it is a truthfulness one.

Because a claim and its limit are the same claim, and separating them is how honest companies drift. The list is on the science page, next to the evidence, rather than in a legal footer where nobody reads it.

There is a practical dimension too. A model or a reader that cites a page reproduces its hedges; a page that overstates gets corrected in public. Stating limits is not modesty, it is what makes the rest of the page usable — and it is the reason the science page shows CHRP's own model as unproven rather than dressing engineering intent up as research.

Because a read that someone suspects is being reported to their coach or their employer stops being a read — they start managing it. Individual privacy is not a feature bolted onto CHRP; it is the precondition for the data meaning anything.

So organizations receive anonymous aggregate trends and nothing else, structurally, with no administrator screen that could reveal an individual. A leader learns that a group is running flat this week, which is the actionable part. Which person is running flat is both unnecessary and the fastest way to make everyone's signal dishonest.

You are the one performing; CHRP is the instrument. It reads a signal you are already producing and hands it back to you — it does not take the field, do the shift, or have the hard conversation.

That is the whole intended relationship, and it is why the founder's biography is not the interesting part of this page. What matters is whether the thing tells you the truth about yourself, and whether the people who built it have said in advance what they will not claim.

Yes — since December 2024, across a podcast appearance and launch announcements distributed over the wire, all of it hosted by third parties and dated. The full list is on the record page.

It is worth being precise about what that does and does not show. It establishes that CHRP is not new and that the work has been documented by people other than CHRP. It establishes nothing about whether the product works — that question belongs to the science page, and the record page says so rather than borrowing credibility it has not earned.

The record also includes material whose framing CHRP would no longer use, and it is listed with that noted rather than dropped. The same reasoning governs this page: a founder page that shows only the flattering half of a history is not a source, and the reader has no way to tell which half they are looking at.