Claims & Positioning Toolkit
For when the marketing may promise more than the product delivers.
- Time
- 45 minutes for campaign reviews; 20 minutes for incremental claim changes.
- Who
- Marketing lead, product lead, legal/risk reviewer, and support/reliability representative.
- Decide now
- Approve, revise, or pull each claim against what the product does today.
- What it gets you
- Public claims that are backed by evidence, watched after publishing, and cheap to withdraw.
- What you leave with
- Claims evidence table with approved language and a takedown response time.
What to do at each pace
- • Do now in tighter conditions: Cut claim language back to what is demonstrably reliable now.
- • Do now in easier conditions: Extend positioning only for claims with monitoring already in place.
- • Go ahead when: Proceed when each claim has an evidence source, an owner, and a monitoring trigger.
- • Pause if: Stop publishing or promoting any claim without verifiable product evidence.
- • Restart when: Pull published copy when support tickets about unmet expectations cross the agreed level.
By pace: When conditions say slow down, claim only what you can prove; when they say speed up, make the bolder claims you can monitor.
Prep checklist
- • Bring current external claims and map each one to measurable product behavior.
- • Review recent support tickets for expectation mismatch patterns.
- • Collect legal/compliance constraints tied to market or vertical-specific language.
Run sequence
Evidence claims
Objective: Map each external claim to product behavior and proof source.
Prompts
- • What observable proof supports each headline claim today?
- • Which claim depends on roadmap promises instead of current capability?
Deliverable: Claims evidence table with confidence grade.
Challenge positioning
Objective: Pressure-test language against customer interpretation and risk exposure.
Prompts
- • How could a skeptical buyer interpret this claim literally?
- • Which phrasing increases legal, trust, or support risk unnecessarily?
Deliverable: Positioning sanity check with approved language edits.
Ship with controls
Objective: Publish with monitoring and rapid correction path.
Prompts
- • Which signals show this claim is promising more than we deliver?
- • Who owns takedown/update decisions if reliability drifts?
Deliverable: Final review checklist naming the rollback owner and response time.
Signs it worked
- • Every published claim has a named evidence source and update owner.
- • Expectation-gap support tickets trend down after copy updates.
- • Claim changes can be rolled back quickly when reliability drifts.
What's in this toolkit
Common mistakes to avoid
- • Publishing AI claims without operational proof