Wiki

Common Ground Ventures

Why we built Ground Truth with Common Ground

We grade research peptides and sell none, so we needed a builder who had no stake in any grade and a habit of checking its own claims.

The question we kept hearing

Almost everything a person can read about peptides comes from someone with a product to move: a vendor, an affiliate, a clinic with a program to fill. Independent material was thin or tied to a discount code. The closest direct competitor was a paid wiki behind a login that did not grade the evidence.

We wanted the opposite, a free reference that sells nothing and says plainly how strong the proof is. We also wanted someone to hand the build to who had no peptide to sell. That was the bar for the builder.

What we asked Common Ground for

The people behind Ground Truth are Jesse Fowler, who builds it, and Dr. Matt Zanis of Rooted in MVMNT, our lead contributor. The judging is the work: reading a study, deciding how far it can be trusted, saying so in plain words. We were at an impasse on turning that judgement into a site that runs every day, and the machinery had to be filled in so the science could stay first.

Jesse brought Common Ground in for the build. He worked on the grading model, the research pipeline and the site. This page is ours, though, and the grades are ours.

The four lenses

Each of our 42 compounds is judged on four separate questions: does the science back it, do real people feel it, is it safe, could it be placebo. Nothing is averaged into one score. The evidence grade runs A to E and counts only the highest level of human evidence reached, so animal data does not raise it. Legal access sits on its own axis and does not touch the score.

We expected pressure on that last choice, and in July it came.

The week the vote came

In July 2026 an FDA advisory committee recommended six peptides for the 503A Bulks List. A site that moved grades on news would have raised six that week. We moved none. The review published alongside the vote called the human safety data insufficient, and our evidence had not changed between July 22 and July 25. By October 3, FDA had proposed no rule on any of the six.

Dull as it sounds, we were glad it held. A grade is only worth reading if it stays where the evidence is.

Found the way people ask now

People now ask an assistant what the evidence says on a compound. We wanted our answer to be the one cited, with its grade attached.

So the build covered the machine-readable side. The site publishes a sitemap of 77 URLs and an llms.txt file. Common Ground added its credit, a footer module and structured data, and closed the API and the two gated pages to crawlers. Ask Ground Truth, the tool on the site, answers only from our graded corpus, names the grade and links the source.

Where it stands

We went public on June 24, 2026 with 42 graded compounds, free, with no store, no vendor money and no affiliate link. Common Ground sits on the Common Ground hub as the builder, and this page is still ours.

Our rule for any partner is the one we hold ourselves to: say what you can check, leave out what you cannot.

Credits

  • Common Ground VenturesCreated by Common Ground Ventures. The grading model, research pipeline, daily regulatory watch, the site and the tracker behind it.
  • Jesse FowlerBuilder of the site, the grading model and the research pipeline

Ground Truth's problem is a claim that has to hold up when someone who is not on your side checks it. Common Ground works the same problem in other industries: a construction estimate with a blind accuracy rule, a deep tech measurement with stated limits, and a medical-device company's US entry, where findings surfaced before any investor saw a page.

On the record

Common Ground Ventures built Ground Truth's grading model, research pipeline and site, and helped write this wiki.