Technical claim governance · Evidence, independent review and controlled publication. Inspect capabilities
Superlimen Foundry · Technical claim governance

Make a claim you can stand behind.

Give every product claim a traceable path from evidence to independent approval. Keep the statement, its limits and the published version connected as your product changes.

Illustrative evidence · R1 / firmware 2.4

10 kg. Three trials. One defined environment.

A test result describes a dry, level indoor floor and a speed of 0.5 m/s. Those conditions belong beside the capability.

“Transported 10 kg over 10 metres in each of three trials.”

Synthetic example. No customer or product performance is asserted.
The review question

Does this evidence support this exact statement?

  • Correct product and version
  • Measured result and operating conditions
  • Visible limitations
  • Independent reviewer and recorded rationale
Follow the example →
The work behind the words

A product changes.
Its claims need a decision.

A capability statement can outlive the test that supported it. A new product version, an expired source or an omitted condition can change what a team can responsibly publish.

Foundry gives authors and technical reviewers a shared record: the evidence version, the precise claim, the decision and the publication. When linked evidence changes, dependent approvals must be revisited.

Built for product-marketing teams and technical reviewers handling complex product claims.

The working platform

From source to signed decision.

Five steps, with a retained record at each transition.

  1. 01
    Register the evidence

    Retain source text, a version and the exact passage a claim relies on. Add an expiry date when support is time-limited.

  2. 02
    Define the claim

    Record the product version, operating conditions and limitations alongside the statement you want to publish.

  3. 03
    Review independently

    An authorized reviewer checks the evidence and records a decision. High-risk claims require two independent reviewers.

  4. 04
    Publish the approved version

    Publish a snapshot of the current approved claim. Its evidence and decision history remain in the workspace.

  5. 05
    Respond to change

    Evidence changes, expiry or revocation invalidate dependent approvals. Hosted publications are withdrawn; configured CMS deliveries enter the withdrawal queue.

Designed for review

The details that make a decision inspectable.

Evidence beside the claim

Open the exact linked text, highlight the supporting passage and check conditions without switching between unrelated documents.

Assistance with a clear boundary

Request evidence analysis, adversarial review, brand feedback or draft wording. AI provides an assessment; an authorized person approves.

Publication tied to approval

Publish the approved snapshot to a hosted claim page. Configured CMS connectors use a delivery queue with visible failures and retries.

Explore the workflow →

A measurable pilot

Judge the review process on its results.

Compare review time, correction effort and unsupported approvals against your existing process. Keep visibility observations and commercial outcomes separate from approval decisions.

We do not publish a claimed uplift before we have evidence for it.

Read our measurement approach →
Before you start

Clear scope. Visible controls.

What can I use today?

Versioned text evidence, scoped claims, independent review, advisory AI jobs, hosted publication, change-triggered re-review and record export. Foundry includes workspace roles, team invitations and owner settings.

Can it connect to our existing systems?

Enterprise sign-in, user provisioning and WordPress, Webflow and Contentful connectors are implemented. Each needs customer configuration and acceptance testing before use.

Does AI determine whether a claim is true?

No. It assesses supplied text and can make mistakes. Qualified reviewers remain responsible for source credibility, claim support and applicable requirements.

Are the examples customer results?

No. They are synthetic walkthroughs showing how to inspect a claim. They carry no customer performance statistics.

Inspect capability and security status →

Start with one claim

Bring the statement. Bring the evidence.

Scope a pilot around a real review process, named reviewers and an agreed publication destination.