Skip to main content

What you get

A claim-by-claim substantiation file: the peer-reviewed evidence supporting each claim, the evidence against it, a defensibility grade, and suggested wording the evidence actually supports.

Who it’s for

Product, brand, regulatory, and R&D teams in consumer goods, sports and performance products, supplements, and devices — plus the consultancies who advise them.

The prompt

The API call

Demand controlled human evidence at a realistic size:
Then run the negative pass:

What to check before you trust it

This is an evidence file for legal, regulatory, and marketing review — not a compliance sign-off. Requirements differ by market and claim type, and a human with that jurisdiction’s expertise makes the final call.
  • Check the population column on every row. The most common substantiation failure is real evidence from a population that is not your customer.
  • Direct versus surrogate outcome is load-bearing. A biomechanical proxy does not substantiate an injury-reduction claim, however strong the correlation.
  • Confirm the negative pass actually ran. If there are no contradicting citations anywhere in the file, it was skipped — null findings exist in almost every applied field.
  • Take the suggested wording seriously. The narrower claim is usually still a good claim, and it is the one you can defend.

Extract numbers and formulas from full-text papers

Pull the effect sizes behind the claim into a comparable table.

Find human-factors evidence for a design decision

The human-subjects evidence behind a product decision.

Best practices

The filter ladder and the rest of the primitives.

All use cases

Browse the gallery by persona.