Why it matters
Claims are promises automation makes at scale. Marketing warmth, legal precision, and support pragmatism collide in every product. Claim governance decides what AI may state, must qualify, or must never say.
A single prohibited superlative in regulated industries can attract regulatory interest. Approved claims accelerate consistent messaging across humans and bots.
Social, partner, and channel content also creates claims bots might echo unless governance scope includes them.
Social and partner channels create claims bots might echo unless governance scope includes them. Governance cannot stop at help center HTML.
Rebrands change superlatives and product names. Claim registries need diff reviews during rebrands, not only at launch.
How it works
Maintain approved and prohibited claim registries with owners, evidence links, and effective dates.
Review new marketing and campaign language for AI impact before launch. Warmth cannot override numeric policy.
Map approved claims to automated tests and contract modules. Claims without tests decay.
Sync claim training for human agents so macros and bots align.
Run claim diff reviews during rebrands when product names and superlatives change.
Map approved claims to human agent training so macros and bots share language.
Maintain prohibited claim changelog with effective dates for audit of historical answers.
Example
Nintendo claim governance approves SLA uptime wording tied to status page links and prohibits absolute uptime guarantees. Chatbot tests fail if generation includes banned phrasing.
Common mistakes
- 1Marketing launches taglines without AI review
- 2Prohibited lists nobody updates after rebrands
- 3Approved claims without linked evidence sources
Test the answer before your customer does.
Run answer tests and evaluations against your governed knowledge before you ship.
See answer evaluations