Product Claims & Concept Development

Product and Concept Overview

The identifying spine of the review - product category and format, development stage, target consumer, intended markets (which set the governing claim rules), the positioning as written, and which input documents are present - so a reviewer can orient and see evidence gaps before the claim analysis.

Consumer Insight and Concept Architecture

The concept broken into its four core elements - consumer insight, functional and emotional benefit, reason to believe (RTB), and positioning / single-minded proposition - with a completeness check flagging any element missing or only implied.

Concept Appeal and Communication Assessment

Where consumer research is provided, how the concept is received - overall appeal, communication clarity, believability, likes and dislikes, packaging response, target-audience fit, purchase intent / willingness to pay, and differentiation - grounded in the research, not speculation.

Product Name and Variant Assessment

The candidate product and shade / variant names assessed for concept fit, consumer response, and an implied-claim check (a name that promises a result is itself a claim needing substantiation), with naming recommendations.

Claim Inventory

One row per distinct marketing claim - captured verbatim and categorised (efficacy, sensory, long-wear, moisturisation, natural / clean, sustainability, dermatological / safety, comparative) - covering both express and implied claims, with comparatives and superlatives flagged for their higher substantiation bar.

Claim Substantiation Basis

For each claim, the substantiation basis - the required evidence type and the evidence actually on file - matched to the claim (clinical / instrumental for performance and health benefits, consumer-perception testing for sensory claims, analytical data for ingredient / free-from claims), with study details, result, and whether the evidence is on file.

Claim-Evidence Linkage and Adequacy

The core adequacy test - whether each claim is actually supported by competent and reliable evidence that measures what the claim asserts, with wording-to-evidence match, an objective-claim-versus-puffery call, and a verdict (Substantiated / Partially / Not substantiated / Puffery / Cannot determine).

Regulatory and Advertising-Review Assessment

Each claim reviewed against the standards for its markets - the US FTC substantiation standard and NAD self-regulation, the EU Regulation 655/2013 six common criteria, and the special rules for free-from, hypoallergenic, dermatologically-tested, natural / clean, and environmental claims - with a per-claim compliance assessment.

Overclaiming and Risk Flags

The overclaiming register - one row per claim that says more than the evidence supports or carries advertising / regulatory risk (unsupported benefit, wording outrunning the result, absolute claim on partial data, drug-level efficacy implication, misleading free-from, vague natural / clean, or greenwashing), each with a severity and the governing standard.

Claims-Substantiation Matrix

The consolidated single-view matrix - one row per claim showing category, substantiation basis, evidence strength, regulatory status, and a disposition (approve as written, approve with qualification, revise wording, hold for substantiation, or remove) - kept consistent with the upstream verdicts.

Overall Claims and Concept Readiness

The single overall readiness call for the concept and its claim set - ready, conditional (minor revisions), material gaps (key claims need substantiation), not ready (unsupported / non-compliant claims must be removed or reworked), or incomplete.

Concept and Claims Summary

The finalised, actionable concept summary - insight, core benefit, reason to believe, and positioning stated cleanly, with claims sorted into supported / to-revise / to-remove-or-hold, the specific substantiation required to unlock held claims, and the overall concept recommendation and next steps.

Substantiation and Development Action Log

The action log - one open item per row (substantiation gap, claim wording, regulatory / legal point, concept element, or consumer-research follow-up) with a priority, plain detail, the concrete action or study required, and the function best placed to own it.