Computed from the protocol library at render time
0 of 6 published protocols are backed by a controlled trial.
That is the leading fact on this page, and it is not flattering. Every one of the 6 protocols we publish is graded authority— the honest phrasing for that grade is “this is the standard approach”, not “studies show”. Nobody in this category has a controlled trial of a full soiling or intercat sequence. We would rather say that plainly than borrow the confidence a trial would earn.
Protocols
6
all 6 graded authority · 0 rct
Sources
36
36/36 primary tier · 23 distinct documents · 5 institutions
Red flags
15
11 refuse and refund · 14/15 block an automatic plan
Specialist disagreements
5
5/5 disclosed to buyers, not smoothed over
Folklore claims quarantined
6
held only to correct · 6/6 worth correcting publicly
Owner mistakes documented
20
the ways owners make it worse, sourced
Management rules
18
18/18 marked non-negotiable
Equipment records
7
3 recommend · 1 neutral · 0 advise against · 3 never
Intake questions
12 / 19
free quiz questions / further paid-intake questions
Evidence grade, in full
Every grade the library is capable of assigning, and how many of our 6 protocols actually carry it. The claim language column is the exact phrasing our plans are allowed to use for that grade — never stronger.
| Grade | Protocols | Honest phrasing (CLAIM_LANGUAGE) |
|---|---|---|
| rct | 0 of 6 | “studies show” |
| authority | 6 of 6 | “this is the standard approach” |
| practitioner | 0 of 6 | “most specialists work this way” |
| disputed | 0 of 6 | “specialists disagree about this” |
Where the 36 source citations come from
36 of 36protocol source citations are primary tier — the original institution's own page, not somebody's summary of it — drawn from 23 distinct documents at 5 named institutions.
IAABC Foundation Journal
6 documents cited
iCatCare
6 documents cited
ASPCA
5 documents cited
Cornell Feline Health Center
4 documents cited
Fear Free Happy Homes
2 documents cited
The 15 red flags, by what happens next
14 of 15 red flags block the automatic plan outright — they route to a person, a veterinarian, or a refund instead. 11 of those are an absolute refusal to sell: medical soiling, a bite or scratch that reached a person, and a fight that drew blood are not something we will write a plan for at any price.
| Action | Count | Blocks an automatic plan? |
|---|---|---|
| Refuse and refund | 11 | Yes |
| Refer to human review | 2 | Yes |
| Refer to a veterinarian | 1 | Yes |
| Proceed with caution | 1 | No |
Where the published field has no data at all
These are pulled verbatim from the library's timeline records — every named gap, not a summary of it. No source we opened publishes a recovery percentage, a week-by-week success rate, or a relapse rate for house soiling or intercat conflict.
soiling · general
- No typicalRange weeks/months to resolution for marking.
- No typicalRange for box aversion / substrate / location.
- No % of cases resolved by n+1 boxes alone.
- No % resolved by neuter (ASPCA says proven for reproductive advertisement; no %).
- No % resolved by Feliway / synthetic pheromone (wording is some effect only).
- No % resolved by buffet.
- No % that become habit after N days untreated.
- No weekly progress rate.
- No relapse % after a dry stretch.
- No dropout / failure-to-comply rates.
- No RCT success % for a house-soiling treatment sequence (none opened).
- No % of house-soiling cases that are medical vs behavioral.
- AAFP/ISFM 2014 house-soiling guidelines (Carney et al.) were not extracted this pass — do not pull numbers from memory.
soiling · soiling.urine_marking
- No typicalRange weeks/months to resolution for marking.
- No % resolved by neuter.
- No % resolved by Feliway / synthetic pheromone.
- No wait-N-days after surgery.
soiling · soiling.location_preference
- No operational definition of reliably uses it.
- No % recovery after location-slide.
soiling · soiling.post_move
- No sourced % of cats that soil or fight after a move.
- No sourced day-count for fully settled beyond the 2–3 week indoor lock-in and the 24-hour anxious-not-eating vet flag.
intercat · general
- No sourced % of pairs that become affiliative / that never accept.
- No sourced histogram of weeks-to-resolution.
- No peer-reviewed head-to-head of intro ladders (food-at-the-door vs iCatCare no-food).
- No sourced they-will-be-friends-in-3-days / 2-weeks promise.
- Blais 29/39 days is n=1.
- Fear Free week to several months is cat–dog — not an intercat typicalRange.
- AAFP 2024 Intercat Tension Guidelines exist (cited by Blais; JFMS) — PDF not opened this pass.
- Elzerman et al. 2020 survey (n=2,492) 87.7% observed conflict / 73.3% of those said it started at a new-cat intro was cited inside Blais; primary paper not opened — treat as survey prevalence of conflict, not a treatment-failure rate, and do not load it as a success number.
intercat · intercat.tension_no_injury
- No sourced % of no-injury tension pairs that later injure.
- No sourced weeks-to-resolution for stare/block-only cases.
intercat · intercat.resource_competition
- No % of conflict resolved by n+1 resources alone.
- No week clock for resource-split.
How these numbers are computed
Everything above is read directly out of protocol-library/when this page renders — the counts, the institution names, and the data-gap bullets are not typed in here by hand. The plan-writing engine may only ever emit records from the same library, so a number on this page cannot drift from what a paying customer's plan is actually built from. Library version 0.1.0-draft.
Want to see what these protocols actually contain? Browse the protocol library — or skip straight to the free read.