The source is an article by Dr. David P. Ruttenberg, a neuroscientist and AI-Ethics Specialist, discussing how wearable technology can objectively distinguish between clinical anxiety and environmental stressors. Ruttenberg explains that continuous monitoring of biosignals like heart rate variability (HRV) and electrodermal activity (EDA) provides robust data to guide intervention, offering up to 97% accuracy in controlled settings. The text presents two case studies—one where environmental accommodations solved stress (Case 1) and another where chronic anxiety required clinical therapy (Case 2)—to illustrate the importance of these objective markers over subjective self-reports. Ultimately, the article advocates for using these physiological data points to make personalized decisions, either by changing the environment or seeking clinical intervention, while stressing the need for ethical and consent-driven organizational deployment.