Substantiate Marketing Claims Before Use

Required inputs

Have these details available before following the usage instructions.

• List of proposed or existing claims exactly as they will appear, including headlines, body copy, ads, sales slides, landing pages, labels, or social posts.
• Claim context: product or service, audience, market, channel, governing jurisdiction or jurisdictions, campaign purpose, and where the claim will be used.
• Supporting evidence for each claim, such as studies, test results, product data, customer proof, certifications, benchmarks, testimonials, screenshots, or source documents.
• Known limitations, assumptions, sample sizes, dates, methodologies, eligibility conditions, excluded populations, and conflicting evidence.
• Competitor or comparative claim details, if applicable, including named competitors, comparison basis, time period, and source data.
• Disclosure, approval, brand, legal, privacy, consent, endorsement, or platform constraints known to the team.
• Decision need: approve as written, qualify, revise, collect more evidence, hold, or withdraw.
• Evidence publication and collection dates, currency requirements, original source authority, supersession or withdrawal status, and the owner authorized to approve each use.

How to use this Skill

When to use:
- A team is preparing website, ad, sales, product, environmental, comparative, performance, endorsement, or thought-leadership claims for review.
- Existing marketing copy needs an evidence audit before publication, campaign launch, partner approval, or legal/compliance review.
- You need to map claims to proof, audience interpretation, required qualifiers, disclosure needs, and withdrawal or expiry conditions.
- You need a reusable governance artifact for claim owners, reviewers, and campaign teams.

When not to use:
- Do not use to obtain legal advice or determine regulatory compliance conclusively.
- Do not use when the user wants persuasive copy generation without evidence review.
- Do not use to validate claims where the only support is internal preference, aspiration, or unsourced competitive belief.
- Do not use as a substitute for legal, regulatory, medical, financial, environmental, or compliance review where required.

Instructions:
1. Use the linked source prompt AMO-P-000257 as the detailed review framework; provide the claims and evidence, then ask the model to produce a substantiation matrix and review questions without reproducing the full prompt text.
2. Break each claim into checkable atomic assertions before judging support.
3. For each claim, distinguish supplied facts, evidence-backed conclusions, assumptions, inferences, missing information, conflicting evidence, and uncertainty.
4. Assess likely audience interpretation, including whether wording implies superiority, universality, guaranteed results, environmental benefit, endorsement, certification, safety, savings, or performance beyond the evidence.
5. Match each claim to evidence authority, currency, jurisdictional relevance, methodology, scope, and limitations; identify superseded material and when evidence supports only a narrower or qualified version.
6. Propose safer wording, qualifiers, disclosures, or claim boundaries only when they remain faithful to the evidence.
7. Assign a disposition for each claim: use as written, use with qualification, revise, needs evidence, legal/compliance review required, or withdraw.
8. Define claim owners, evidence expiry triggers, revalidation cadence, approval path, and takedown or update conditions for publication governance.

Expected output:
A claim substantiation matrix with atomic claims, audience interpretation, supporting evidence, evidence strength, limitations, required qualifiers or disclosures, recommended wording changes, risk level, approval needs, expiry triggers, and final disposition.

Constraints and boundaries:
- Do not invent evidence, certifications, customer results, comparative data, or legal conclusions.
- Do not state that a claim is legally compliant; instead identify evidence readiness and when specialist review is required.
- Require human review before publication or use of claims that are legal, regulated, comparative, environmental, health, financial, safety-related, customer-identifiable, or otherwise consequential.
- Do not disclose confidential customer, product, or research details unless the user confirms authorization and any required consent.
- Do not make claims broader, stronger, or more certain than the supplied evidence supports.

Based on an Amo.ng Prompt

Brand Claim Substantiation Matrix

Open the linked Prompt to read the instructions this Skill is based on.

Completion criteria

Complete when:
- Every approved or qualified claim links to specific supplied evidence or is marked as unsupported.
- The matrix separates claim text from interpretation, evidence, limitations, and recommended wording.
- Unsupported, ambiguous, overbroad, expired, or high-risk claims are clearly flagged with next actions.
- Publication, legal, compliance, privacy, endorsement, and regulated-claim risks are routed to human review where appropriate.
- The output includes evidence expiry or revalidation triggers so claim governance can continue after the initial review.