Product Claims & Concept Development
Pressure-test a consumer / personal-care product concept and its marketing claims: break the concept into insight, benefit, reason-to-believe, and positioning; inventory every express and implied claim; link each to a substantiation basis; test claim-to-evidence adequacy against FTC, NAD, and EU 655/2013; flag overclaiming; and return a cited claims-substantiation matrix, a readiness call, and a finalised concept summary.
Concept-and-claims review - claim inventory, substantiation-basis mapping, claim-to-evidence adequacy, and FTC / NAD / EU 655-2013 checking - that took manual, spreadsheet-by-spreadsheet claims-and-research review compressed to minutes per concept, with every claim traced to its evidence and a cited disposition, so unsupported claims are caught before they reach pack copy or advertising
per concept
What it extracts
13 extraction fields
- 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.
Where it fits
Consumer product concept development and claims substantiation
Upstream
Concept and claim generation - a marketing / R&D team produces a concept board or creative brief, candidate pack copy and claims, and commissions the supporting evidence (clinical, instrumental, consumer-perception, or ingredient testing) and consumer concept research
This step
Claims and concept review - concept-architecture check, claim inventory and categorisation, substantiation-basis mapping, claim-to-evidence adequacy testing, FTC / NAD / EU 655-2013 regulatory review, overclaiming flags, the claims-substantiation matrix, an overall readiness call, a finalised concept summary, and a development action log
Downstream
- Regulatory / legal sign-off on final claims and label copy
- Commissioning of any substantiation studies needed to unlock held claims
- Pack-copy and advertising finalisation and launch
- Claims dossier / substantiation file maintained for the product's market life
What it needs
Documents
- Product concept board / creative brief
- Candidate marketing claims list and pack copy
- Advertising / campaign copy
- Substantiation dossier - clinical, instrumental, consumer-perception, or expert-grading study reports
- Ingredient / formulation and analytical data
- Consumer concept-test or qualitative research readout
Systems
- Product lifecycle / concept management system
- Claims / substantiation dossier repository
- Consumer-insights research platform
- Document repository
Prerequisites
- The concept document or creative brief under review
- The list of claims (and pack / advertising copy) the product intends to make
- The available substantiation evidence for those claims, so the claim-to-evidence linkage can be tested
- Any consumer concept-research readout, for the appeal and communication assessment
What it produces
A per-concept claims-and-development record - the concept architecture (insight / benefit / RTB / positioning), a consumer-appeal read, a claim inventory, a substantiation-basis map, a claim-to-evidence adequacy table, an FTC / NAD / EU 655-2013 regulatory assessment, an overclaiming register, the consolidated claims-substantiation matrix, an overall readiness classification, a finalised concept-and-claims summary, and a substantiation / development action log
Delivered to
- Regulatory / legal claims sign-off
- Substantiation study commissioning queue
- Pack-copy and advertising finalisation
- Product claims dossier / substantiation file
Review model
A claims / regulatory reviewer and a brand or R&D lead review each flagged claim, the evidence linkage, and the cited standard before any claim is approved for pack copy or advertising; unsupported or non-compliant claims are held or reworded, not shipped.
Who uses it
Volume fit
Works best for
consumer and personal-care teams developing and clearing many product concepts and their claim sets across a portfolio or innovation pipeline each cycle
Too small for
a one-off review of a single claim with no repeatable concept or claims volume
Grounded in
- Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 (common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products)verified as of 2026-07-22
- EU Technical Document on cosmetic claims - Annex III ('free from') and Annex IV ('hypoallergenic')verified as of 2026-07-22
- FTC Act Section 5 substantiation doctrine + FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (competent and reliable scientific evidence)verified as of 2026-07-22
- National Advertising Division (NAD), BBB National Programs - advertising self-regulationverified as of 2026-07-22
- FTC Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260) - environmental marketing claimsverified as of 2026-07-22
Changelog
- July 2026
based on a production deployment at a global consumer personal-care company
Related agents
Browse all agents →Clinical / Efficacy Study Data Extraction
Turn a personal-care efficacy study report into a clean, cited read-out - design, endpoints, statistics vs baseline and between treatments, and whether each claim is substantiated.
Consumer Complaint Analysis
Triage a consumer personal-care product complaint into a clean, cited record - category, product and batch, adverse-event and seriousness assessment, a MoCRA / EU cosmetovigilance reportability screen, root-cause signals, and recommended actions.
Skin-Image Measurement (Vision)
Turn a personal-care study's standardized skin photographs into clean, cited per-image measurements and change vs baseline - wrinkles, spots, pores, redness, texture, radiance, or perceived age - with a capture-quality gate on the front.
See Product Claims & Concept Development on your documents
We'll run it against a file of yours and walk through every cited field.