The Research Ledger
Money in, science out — in the open. When you pay for Callipso you fund research, not margin. This is the live record of every dollar: what we raised, which studies it funds, who runs them, and what they find.
Last reconciled 2026-06-29. DRAFT — wording for the revenue figure (“100% of net subscription revenue”) is not final.
How the money flows
$3 Submit → the learning-science lab
The Submit tier is a 100% pass-through. Net revenue funds building Sapio’s in-house learning-science lab — starting with the first hire, a cognitive scientist — the science behind the free tools.
$8 Full → the product
The Full tier is a clean product purchase — no research split. It unlocks the full developer suite and keeps the software being built.
Figures are net of card fees. The payment processor takes a flat ~$0.30 + 2.9% per charge — about a third of a $1 contribution, ~13% at $3, under 10% at $5+ — so more of a larger contribution lands. Callipso keeps $0 either way; the only cut is the processor’s.
Re-run the science our tools are built on — in the open, at real-world scale.
Sapio — Callipso's free learning tab — is engineered from published learning-science results. The mission is to build an in-house learning-science lab that replicates those results with consenting users, settles the open questions, and publishes every finding — funded entirely by the people who use it, from $3 a month.
The roadmap — what happens next
Run the first replication: reading aloud vs. silent recall
NextPre-register and run a real study of the production effect — does speaking an answer aloud during recall beat recalling it silently? — inside Sapio's own read-aloud loop, with consenting users as participants.
Doable now, solo: doing and publishing this needs no accreditation and no diploma — preprint servers (OSF / PsyArXiv) have zero gate. The only real requirement is a genuine, pre-registered protocol.
Publish the receipt
NextPost the preprint and the open, anonymized dataset, then wire the outcome into this public ledger. "Money in, science out" becomes verifiable rather than a promise.
Transparency is the whole pitch — the result ships whether it confirms the effect or not.
Turn the app into a continuous experiment
PlannedWith explicit informed consent, embed small randomized content-formulation contrasts into everyday review — and capture the signal almost no one has: did a real person actually remember, two weeks later?
Outcome-labeled retention at scale is the unique asset — most edtech optimizes proxies (clicks, time-on-app); this optimizes whether learning actually stuck.
Replicate the rest of the stack
PlannedPre-registered replications of the other effects Sapio relies on — pretesting, spacing, retrieval practice, recall-by-analogy — each run in the open and wired into the public ledger.
Formalize the research arm
PlannedOnce the funding supports it: register a research vehicle (a fonds de dotation), bring on a credentialed lead researcher, and use the French R&D framework (the CIR tax credit; the agrément CIR to route third-party funding) so the loop is state-recognized, not just self-declared.
None of this is required to start — it is the step that makes the funding loop tax-real and audit-proof once money is flowing.
Build the institute
VisionThe long-horizon bet: a research center under one thesis — understanding and amplifying intelligence, biological and artificial — sited for talent density (the Paris-Saclay learning-neuroscience cluster is the natural home), funded by the people who learn with the tools.
Moonshot, scale-contingent — stated honestly as a destination, not a near-term claim.
Studies
DRAFT: Distributed vs. massed practice in self-directed review
DRAFT: Does spacing review sessions beat cramming for long-term retention in everyday learners (not lab undergrads)?
Run by: DRAFT: TBD independent learning-science lab
Result: DRAFT: Settled in the literature — spacing wins. Seeded here as a completed example to show the "result" column.
DRAFT: Read-aloud vs. silent recall
DRAFT: Does speaking an answer aloud during retrieval practice improve retention over recalling it silently?
Run by: DRAFT: TBD university partner
DRAFT: Recall-by-analogy vs. verbatim recall
DRAFT: Is recalling a concept by re-deriving an analogy more durable than verbatim recall — and what is the time cost of analogy-making?
Run by: DRAFT: TBD
Become a participant
The tools are free. If you want to fund the science behind them, the $3 Submit tier is the cheapest way to join the study.