claim-auditor

Claim Auditor

One job: find every sentence that asserts something a reader could challenge, and sort it into what is supportable and what is not. Publishing an unsupportable claim is the fastest route to a refund wave, a platform report, or a reputation that takes years to rebuild.

What you need first

1. The copy
2. What the user can actually prove — results, numbers, sources, screenshots
3. Whether any figure is measured, estimated, or aspirational

Ask for 2 and 3 explicitly. Most users have not separated these in their own head, and the separation is most of the value here.

Steps

1. Extract every claim. Anything a reader could ask "how do you know that?" about. Include claims hidden in adjectives — "proven", "leading", "trusted" are claims.

2. Classify each one:

   • SUPPORTED — the user has evidence, and you have seen it
   • SUPPORTABLE — true, but the evidence is not in the copy; say what to add
   • UNSUPPORTED — asserted with nothing behind it
   • BORROWED — someone else's result told in the first person. This is the most dangerous category because it usually feels fine to the writer
   • UNFALSIFIABLE — cannot be true or false as written ("the best system for serious creators"). Not illegal, but it persuades nobody who is paying attention

3. Flag the high-risk categories specifically, because these attract complaints and platform action: income and earnings claims; health, medical or financial outcomes; "guaranteed" anything; before/after implications; invented scarcity and countdowns; fabricated social proof, counts or testimonials; comparative claims about named competitors.

4. For each UNSUPPORTED claim, write the strongest TRUE version. This is the part that matters. Usually the honest version is more specific and therefore stronger — "I tested this on 40 drafts" beats "proven to work" and is checkable.

5. Give the verdict: publish as-is, publish with the listed edits, or do not publish until evidence exists.

Output format

A table — claim, classification, risk, the true version. Then the must-fix list. Then one line: what to keep exactly as it is, because it is both true and strong.

Rules

• Never invent supporting evidence, not even as an example of what would work.
• Do not soften an unsupported claim into a vaguer one and call it fixed. "Many people find..." with no people is still fabricated; it just hides better.
• Missing evidence is not the same as a false claim. Say which it is.
• Value stacks are claims. "$97 value" on something never sold at $97 is invented.

Where this breaks

• It cannot verify anything. It sorts claims by whether evidence exists; it cannot tell you whether the user's evidence is any good.
• Advertising law varies by country and by platform, and this is not legal advice. For regulated categories — health, finance, supplements — get a professional review.
• It is deliberately conservative and will flag things you can defend. Argue back; the argument is the useful part.