Public statement evidence checker

Buyer

Communications teams publishing factual statements

Problem

Unsupported claims survive normal copy editing.

Format

Evidence review and quality assurance workspace

Also fits

Writers; Executives and Strategy; Operations

USP

Claim-level review that exposes the evidence behind public wording.

The product

Key screens: Claim list, supporting passages, reviewer verdict. Open on a review queue ordered by reviewer-selected priorities. Show each finding beside the original evidence and applicable rule. Provide accept, dismiss and needs-information controls with reasons. A separate report view summarizes confirmed findings and unresolved items, not raw AI flags. In this product, the first view is claim list, followed by supporting passages and reviewer verdict.

Core functionality

1. Extract factual claims.
2. Locate supplied evidence.
3. Flag overstatement.
4. Check dates and quantities.
5. Distinguish opinion.
6. Record reviewer decisions.

Customer workflow

Agree review criteria, ingest a sample, generate candidate findings, inspect supporting evidence, let reviewers confirm or dismiss each item, assign corrections, and recheck the affected material. Start with draft statements and approved evidence sources and finish with statement evidence verification report.

AI and human review

Propose possible inconsistencies, omissions and rubric matches. Combine extraction with deterministic checks where rules are explicit. Reviewers make the final judgment. Keep false positives and missed cases visible during evaluation.

What the customer puts in

Draft statements and approved evidence sources

What the customer gets

Statement evidence verification report

Accounts and administration

Versioned review criteria, evidence links, reviewer decisions, disagreement handling, correction assignments, recheck status and exportable review history.

MVP scope

Begin with communications teams publishing factual statements and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract factual claims; locate supplied evidence. Provide operator assistance for the third module: flag overstatement. Deliver statement evidence verification report through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.

After the MVP is validated

After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: check dates and quantities; distinguish opinion; record reviewer decisions. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.

Build dependencies

Evidence coordinates, versioned rules, reviewer decisions and a representative reference set. Measure misses as well as confirmed findings before scaling.

Integrations and data access

Approved company facts, permitted media sources and publication workflows. Source repositories, task trackers and report exports. Keep findings as review proposals until authorized owners accept the resulting actions. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.

Defensibility

A domain-specific review rubric and rights-cleared examples of confirmed defects, false alarms and reviewer reasoning. For this idea, build around claim-level review that exposes the evidence behind public wording. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.

Alternatives and positioning

Manual reviewers, checklists, generic scanning tools and specialist audit services. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: claim-level review that exposes the evidence behind public wording. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.

Revenue model and test pricing

Test USD 500-2,000 for a defined audit sample and report. Offer recurring review priced by reviewed items and specialist hours. Software-only access can follow a reliable reviewed service. All prices require validation.

Main delivery costs

Document or media processing, model evaluation, expert review, false-positive handling, rechecks and customer-specific rubric calibration.

Marketing message to test

Public statement evidence checker for communications teams publishing factual statements. Claim-level review that exposes the evidence behind public wording. Demonstrate the claim through an annotated factual-claim review.

Acquisition channels

PR legal review partners

Lead magnet

An annotated factual-claim review

The first 30 days of marketing

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: communications teams publishing factual statements. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
2. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: an annotated factual-claim review.
3. Week 3: present it through PR legal review partners and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
4. Week 4: review confirmed unsupported claims, false alarms, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.

Paid pilot and validation

Have a qualified reviewer independently assess the same sample. Compare confirmed findings, false alarms and omissions. Repeat on unseen material before agreeing recurring volume. For this idea, use draft statements and approved evidence sources and evaluate statement evidence verification report. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for confirmed unsupported claims, false alarms. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.

Success metrics

Confirmed unsupported claims, false alarms

Retention and expansion

Offer recurring reviews and rechecks of previously confirmed issues. Expand document or case types after validating the new rubric with qualified reviewers.

Operating controls and limitations

Verify public facts and quotations. Keep publication authority explicit and preserve the original context behind media and reputation findings. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.

Investment indication

What it would take to build, from a first MVP to the full product. A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. Running costs (model usage, hosting, reviewer hours) come on top.

Brand style (concept)