Science Intelligence

Claim Dev™

Your science, turned into compliant, impactful claims that survive scrutiny.

What It Is

Claim architecture built on the science foundation — the stage of the Science Marketing Engine that turns the Lit Review™ into usable, defensible language.

Who it's for: brands that already have science, studies, or clinical support — but need the claims organized into usable, defensible marketing language.

The Claim Workshop

How a finding becomes a claim.

A good claim is not a sentence lifted out of a study. Swipe through the five steps we take to build one.

Step 01 · The finding

Start with what the evidence actually says.

Not a headline from an abstract. A finding we have verified, with the studies behind it and anything that points the other way recorded alongside.

The finding

Across pooled absorption trials, the organic salt reached materially higher serum levels than the oxide form at an identical elemental dose.

2 pivotal studies, full text1 null cohort recorded
Step 02 · Take it apart

A claim is several evidentiary questions wearing one sentence.

Before anything gets written, the claim is broken into its component parts and each part is substantiated on its own. Your reviewers see every one of them, which is what makes the file reviewable instead of arguable.

Component parts

  • Does the form change how much is absorbed?
  • Is the difference large enough to matter at the dose we sell?
  • Does more absorbed mean more felt by the user?
  • Can we say it without implying a disease benefit?
Step 03 · Write it for who reads it

The same evidence, two registers.

A shopper and a clinician are not persuaded by the same sentence. Both versions trace to the same substantiation, and neither is written to sound like an abstract.

Consumer

“The label tells you how much magnesium is in it. Absorption tells you how much you get.”

Short, front of pack, disclaimer carried alongside.

Practitioner

“Bioavailability differs several-fold across commonly sold magnesium salts at matched elemental dose.”

Mechanism forward, evidentiary anchor, written to hold a clinician.

Step 04 · Grade it

Every claim arrives scored, not just written.

Evidence strength, regulatory risk, and how much of the category can say the same thing. That is what turns a list of sentences into a shortlist you can actually make decisions from.

How this claim scores

Evidence strengthStrong
Consumer relevanceHigh
Competitive whitespaceWide open
Approval riskLow
Step 05 · Say what it will not carry

The guardrail is part of the deliverable.

Every claim states plainly what the evidence does not support. It is the fastest way through review, and it is what keeps a good claim from quietly stretching into a bad one six months later.

Guardrail

Supports: an absorption claim, at this dose and form.

Does not support: sleep, anxiety or cognition claims. Carries the required supplement disclaimer.

New or unapproved language ships flagged as working language pending MLR. Nothing reaches market on our say-so alone.

Swipe, or use the arrows

Illustrative example · fictional product

Scored like investments, not slogans.

The science tells you what is true. It does not tell you which truth is worth saying. Every claim we develop is scored on four things, so the shortlist you take into review is ranked on defensibility and strategic value rather than on which line reads prettiest.

Evidence strength

How solid is the substantiation behind the claim?

Audience relevance

Does it change how consumers choose?

Approval risk

Will it survive MLR and regulatory review?

Competitive opportunity

Can competitors say the same thing?

Proof

Bausch + Lomb: 83 studies to approved claims in three weeks.

35 claims
Compliant, evidence-graded, tied to source studies
23 verified studies
Every claim re-checked against the published record
MLR approved
While the product was still in formulation
Read the Full Case Study
What It Produces

A clear hierarchy of substantiated, defensible, approvable claims — ranked by uniqueness, consumer impact, and strategic value.

Next: Science Story™
FAQ

Claim Dev™ — common questions

What is Claim Dev™?

Claim Dev™ turns your science into a hierarchy of marketing claims that are substantiated, defensible, and approvable — each tied directly to the source studies that support it.

What does Claim Dev™ deliver?

A graded, searchable claims library: structure-function claims mapped to evidence, source-log verification, and language built to survive medical, legal, and regulatory (MLR) review.

Will the claims survive MLR?

That's the point. Every claim is evidence-graded and traceable to the published record, so your legal and regulatory teams can verify it quickly and approve with confidence.

How long does Claim Dev™ take?

Typically a matter of months. In one engagement, a 35-claim, MLR-approved roadmap was delivered in three weeks — while the product was still being formulated.

Do I need a Lit Review™ first?

Often, yes. Lit Review™ surfaces the evidence; Claim Dev™ organizes it into approvable claims. Together they form the foundation of your Science Story™.

How is this different from claims software?

Software suggests claim language and scores its risk automatically; your team still validates it and carries it through review. We deliver finished claim development: graded, tied to verified sources, scoped to your regulatory class, and supported through MLR. We wrote a fuller comparison here: IngredientAI vs. Let There Be.

Have science but no claims architecture?

Claim Dev™ turns your existing studies into marketing language that survives scrutiny.

Organize My Claims