Chastity Sizing Data 2026: A Retailer Disclosure Audit

Updated 16 August 2026 · Modern Chastity Editorial Team

Across 629 captured product records, the number that disclosed both ring diameter and cage length as clearly labelled, high-confidence fields was 0. The registered sample for that statistic is 629 records. This is the clearest finding in our retailer specification audit.

Zero records publish both size fields clearly. Each dot is one of the 629 records we captured on 2026-08-10. Not a low rate — none at all. That gap is why this site exists.

This page publishes the finding in a form that can be checked and cited. It describes what the source listings disclosed; it does not rank products, test devices, or infer how any device fits a particular person.

Evidence status: Original retailer specification audit — not a product test
Basis: 629 retailer product records checked for high-confidence ring-diameter and cage-length fields.
Snapshot: 2026-08-10
Scope: Public specification disclosure in the captured records. The dataset is not a census of the market and does not establish fit, comfort, product quality, or safety.

What we captured

The source dataset contains retailer product records collected from public pages on August 10, 2026. The product records are stored in shop_product; extracted specification fields and their provenance are stored in shop_spec. The published finding is registered in derived_stat as chastity_spec_dual_high, together with its sample, method, limitations, query path, and computation timestamp.

The unit in the headline is a captured product record, not a person, a wear trial, a laboratory measurement, or a verified physical device. We did not buy, wear, or measure the products. We audited whether the public retailer data exposed two size fields in a form our method could identify with high confidence.

The captured records are not the whole market. They are a time-bounded snapshot of the public retail sources in our collection. A listing may change after capture, a retailer may provide more information privately, and products or sellers outside the collection are not represented.

How confidence was assigned

For this finding, high confidence required the dimension to come from an explicitly labelled product option. A value attached to an option labelled for ring diameter, for example, has clearer provenance than a number found somewhere in descriptive body copy. Free-text dimensions were not promoted to high confidence when the text did not establish which dimension, endpoint, unit, or variant the value described.

The test was deliberately strict: a record counted only if both the ring-diameter field and the cage-length field reached high confidence. The SQL cross-check of the captured records returned the same result recorded in derived_stat: 0, with a registered sample of 629 records.

That zero does not mean every captured listing lacked dimensions. It means none met this specific dual-field disclosure rule. It also does not show that any product is good, bad, safe, unsafe, comfortable, or suitable. Silence or ambiguity in a listing is evidence about disclosure only.

What was excluded — and why one result remains publishable

The extraction process normalizes candidate dimensions before any distribution analysis. Implausible normalized cage-length values can arise from ambiguous fields or unit conversion, so those candidates are excluded from distribution calculations rather than treated as physical measurements.

An earlier outlier percentage is still present in the audit ledger but is marked Withdrawn. The same is true of the earlier ring-disclosure rate, cage-length disclosure rate, combined-field share, and high-confidence ring share. Review found that their denominators depended on an automated product classification with unresolved false positives and false negatives. This page therefore does not republish those values.

The headline count survives that review because it does not depend on choosing among the disputed device denominators. The SQL check covers the full set of 629 captured records, and no record satisfies both high-confidence conditions. Keeping the withdrawn rows in the ledger preserves the audit trail; omitting their values here prevents a retired result from being presented as current evidence.

What this finding can support

Known from the captured data. No captured product record had both size fields in the high-confidence category. The result, sample, method, and limitations are registered together under chastity_spec_dual_high.

Not established. Whether the same gap exists across the whole market, whether a retailer can clarify a field on request, whether a stated value is physically accurate, or whether any device fits a particular person.

Next evidence step. Manually label a gold-standard product set, resolve the denominator rules, then recompute any disclosure percentages before publishing them.

Use the finding to support a narrow statement: in this captured retailer dataset, no record disclosed both size fields at the audit's high-confidence level. Do not convert it into a market-wide rate, a seller ranking, or a claim about physical product performance.

Reproducibility notes

The traceable record for the published result contains:

Statistic ID: chastity_spec_dual_high
Source tables: shop_product and shop_spec
Audit snapshot: August 10, 2026
Registered result: 0, sample 629 captured records
Method file: data/derived/queries/chastity_spec_disclosure.sql

The statistic is generated through the repository's derived-data workflow and checked by the site's statistic-traceability gate. This is a reproducibility note, not a claim that the underlying retailer pages will remain unchanged.

How to cite this page

You may cite the finding with attribution to Modern Chastity. Suggested citation:

Modern Chastity Editorial Team. “Chastity Sizing Data 2026: A Retailer Disclosure Audit.” Retailer data captured August 10, 2026. Modern Chastity. https://modernchastity.com/guides/chastity-sizing-data-2026

For a short in-text attribution, use: Modern Chastity retailer specification audit (captured August 10, 2026; 629 product records). If you quote the zero finding, retain the description “captured product records” and the high-confidence dual-field rule. Those qualifiers are part of the result, not optional caveats.

Next step

Read what retailer size listings omit, then use the input-free measuring walkthrough to keep personal measurement separate from retailer disclosure.