Which adjectives in AI product copy need evidence?

Underline the implied promise

For an illustrative bag draft, “lightweight,” “durable” and “weatherproof” carry different burdens. A photograph of a slim bag does not prove its mass or resistance to rain. Ask what a reasonable reader would expect from the word and which product record supports that expectation.

Do not solve the problem by adding “designed to” to every unsupported claim. That phrase can still communicate a performance promise. Keep material, construction and intended use distinct from measured outcomes.

Build an adjective audit

These are editorial examples, not legal definitions or compliance advice. Specialized health, safety and environmental claims need appropriate expert review and evidence.

Use one claim row per exact phrase: product/version, implied buyer expectation, supplied evidence, relevant conditions, decision owner and accepted wording. A fictional bag’s approved sheet may state a mass of 350 g but provide no comparison sample. “Product mass: 350 g” then communicates the supplied figure; it does not establish “lighter than competing bags.” If the mass itself is unverified, leave both claims unapproved rather than invent a measurement. A photograph showing padding likewise does not establish an all-day comfort outcome.

Review what the whole communication conveys. In its US advertising guidance, the FTC discusses express and implied claims in words and pictures and evidence suited to the claim. That US background is not a universal legal definition of each adjective or clearance of this fictional copy. Use the actual product evidence and the responsible market/category reviewer for consequential promises. Shopify also warns about invented generated benefits, so an accurate input sheet still needs output review.

Review image and copy together

A dry product shown under a fictional rainstorm can strengthen an unsupported weather-resistance claim even if the caption stays vague. Remove or revise the scene when it implies a capability the product owner has not approved. The review covers the whole communication.

Keep a rejected-phrase list

Save the exact unsupported wording and reason with the brief. Use it in later poster and video reviews so the same phrase does not return through a different channel. Read verified benefits for positive rewriting and prop-implied claims for visual language.

Keep the rejected phrase with the asset version and the accepted alternative. When the same “all-day comfort” line reappears in an alt attribute, poster or video ending, the earlier rejection still applies unless new evidence has been approved for that precise scope. Do not treat moving a claim into a picture or adding “designed to” as new substantiation. Use brand voice anchors to revise tone without recreating the unsupported promise.

A concrete replacement example

A fictional headphone draft says “all-day comfort,” but its source sheet contains only a photographed padded headband and fabric ear cushions. Replace the unsupported outcome with the verified construction details, or request appropriate evidence from the product owner. Inspect the scene for implied claims too: a marathon workday story can reinforce the same unsupported promise. Save the rejected phrase with the reason and approved alternative. The writer now has a repeatable factual boundary, rather than a vague instruction to make the copy sound less exaggerated.