Prepare a substantiation packet for regulated marketing claims
Break a marketing draft into reviewable claims, link each claim to supplied scientific and product evidence, and flag unsupported wording for specialist approval.
How this works
Use this to prepare a draft for regulated marketing review, with the intended product, audience, jurisdiction and channel explicitly stated. The output connects individual claims to approved product information and scientific evidence. It also identifies the wording that needs a reviewer’s judgment before the asset can progress.
Evidence retrieval is different from approval. A paper mentioning a product category does not substantiate every claim about a particular product, and a statistically significant result does not establish a general marketing promise. Preserve population, endpoint, comparator, limitations and publication context. The assistant pre-screens the draft; specialists own the final interpretation.
Before you start
Defined asset scope
Record product version, audience, market, channel and the planned review stage.
Approved evidence set
Obtain current product information, approved claims, relevant scientific sources and the team’s review rules.
Review ownership
Identify the medical, regulatory and legal reviewers and the status vocabulary they use.
Prepare the inputs
- marketing_draft
- Required
Text plus asset or slide identifiers
Include captions, charts, footnotes and implied comparative claims.
- evidence_library
- Required
Approved documents with versions
Keep full source locations and known restrictions; do not substitute search snippets for supporting text.
- review_rules
- Required
Versioned audience and market rules
The reviewer supplies or verifies applicability; no invented compliance checklist.
- approved_claims
- Optional / conditional
Optional approved wording register
Check product, market and audience match before reusing approval.
Implementation, step by step
Freeze the review version
- Assign an asset version and preserve the original wording and layout references.
- Record the product, audience and market so later edits cannot reuse an approval out of context.
Checkpoint: The review packet identifies exactly what is being assessed.
Separate explicit and implied claims
- Extract factual, comparative, numerical and benefit claims into atomic rows.
- Include chart headlines and image captions; distinguish factual statements from editorial tone.
Checkpoint: Each claim maps to a precise location in the draft.
Retrieve appropriate support
- Find supplied product or scientific evidence addressing the same population, endpoint and comparison.
- Record limitations and whether the support is direct, partial, contradictory or absent.
Checkpoint: Every support judgment cites a document passage and a match rationale.
Pre-screen wording and context
- Compare the claim with approved language and the reviewer-supplied rules.
- Flag overstated certainty, missing qualifications and unsupported extrapolation without pronouncing the asset legally compliant.
Checkpoint: The matrix identifies the exact wording and reason requiring review.
Prepare a controlled revision
- Suggest narrower wording only when the evidence supports it and retain the original for comparison.
- Keep unresolved claims in the marked draft rather than silently removing inconvenient issues.
Checkpoint: Reviewers receive a traceable change proposal and unresolved-question list.
Reconcile reviewer decisions
- Record each reviewer’s disposition against the frozen asset version.
- If the team changes product facts, audience or substantive wording, flag the affected claims for another review.
Checkpoint: Approval status cannot be transferred to an unreviewed version.
Decisions along the way
A source supports a narrower population or endpoint
Show the mismatch and suggest explicitly qualified wording for specialist review.
No approved evidence supports a claim
Mark unsupported and request support or removal; never fabricate a citation.
What you will produce
claim-substantiation.xlsx
WorkbookEvidence preparation for the approval process.
Include: claim_id · asset_location · claim · source · support_scope · limitation · review_status
marked-marketing-draft.md
MarkdownProposed edits with unresolved issues intact.
Include: original_wording · proposed_wording · reason · reviewer
Check the result
- Open every citation and verify it supports the specific statement.
- Check numeric claims, denominators, qualifiers and comparator wording.
- Verify the approval scope matches product, audience, market and asset version.
- Ensure missing evidence is not labeled compliant or low risk by default.
When something goes wrong
Only an abstract or search snippet is available
Label the limited evidence and request the appropriate full source before substantiation.
Evidence documents contradict one another
Retain the conflict and refer it to the medical reviewer instead of averaging conclusions.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: prepare a product brochure for review.
Inputs
The draft says all users improve within one week. The supplied study reports a defined endpoint in a limited adult study group, with variation in response.
Expected result
Flag the universal wording, attach the actual study scope and request medical review of a qualified statement. No automatic approval or treatment advice is produced.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Use previously reviewed assets with known overstated claims and missing citations.
Record the baseline
Measure omitted review issues and time spent locating support manually.
Agree success criteria
Agree claim-coverage and false-substantiation thresholds with the review team.
Stop or revise
Stop clearance recommendations if the current product information or applicable review rules are missing.
Keep the scope clear
- This is an internal preparation workflow, not medical guidance or a regulatory compliance certification.
- Publishing, sending and final claim approval remain separate authorized actions.
Check before using
Qualified medical, regulatory and legal reviewers decide whether a claim is accurate, applicable and permitted for the intended audience.
Business activities
- Create and publish content
- Run advertising and acquisition tests
- Operate and improve AI workflows
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: marketing draft · evidence library · review rules · approved claims
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow