Maintain scientific and ethical caution in representing benefits

The manuals converge on a cautious, evidence-aware stance. Across the extracts, they recommend avoiding overstatement, presenting findings responsibly, and recognising limits in the evidence base. The ketamine pilot study and the psilocybin follow-up both stress that preliminary or methodologically constrained findings should not be treated as definitive proof of efficacy, and both frame the interventions as emerging or promising rather than conclusively established. They also share an ethical emphasis on balancing possible benefit against uncertainty and risk. The LSD source highlights judicious clinical judgment, including weighing therapeutic benefit against psychosis risk and avoiding unnecessary harm, while the ketamine source similarly points to careful, individualised decision-making in light of limited statistical power and observational limitations. The common thread is honest communication of uncertainty to patients and colleagues. The sources differ mainly in emphasis and context. The psilocybin extract focuses most directly on limits of inference from a crossover design and on communicating the experimental nature of the intervention, whereas the ketamine extract foregrounds the preliminary status of pilot and observational evidence. The LSD source is less about study design and more about general risk-benefit judgment, with a stronger warning about potential harm and variable outcomes.