Credibility audit
Connect every consequential claim to inspectable proof
The stronger the consequence for the reader, the clearer the source, scope, limitations and current owner of the claim should be.
Audience claim
Name the situation the product is designed to serve.
- Weak
- Built for everyone who wants to grow
- Stronger
- Specific role, context and constraint
- Proof
- Relevant workflow and examples
Mechanism claim
Explain how the product creates the promised outcome.
- Weak
- AI-powered transformation
- Stronger
- Concrete input, operation and output
- Proof
- Product walkthrough or methodology
Performance claim
Bound numbers by population, method and period.
- Weak
- 10x faster
- Stronger
- Measured task and comparison conditions
- Proof
- Current study or product telemetry
Social proof
Identify the source and relevant relationship truthfully.
- Weak
- Anonymous praise or invented activity
- Stronger
- Authorized, attributable, contextual evidence
- Proof
- Consent and supporting record
Trust and safety claim
Distinguish controls, audits, certifications and aspirations.
- Weak
- Enterprise-grade secure
- Stronger
- Named control and verification scope
- Proof
- Current policy, report or technical evidence
Authorship and update
Show who owns consequential content and when it changed.
- Weak
- Undated generic advice
- Stronger
- Named editorial owner and review scope
- Proof
- Source notes and substantive update history
Operating principle
Specificity is useful only when it is true
Replacing vague copy with invented detail makes the page more persuasive and less trustworthy. Every specific metric, customer result, security claim and endorsement needs an authorized evidence path.
When evidence is unavailable, narrow the claim or describe the product mechanism directly. Clear limitations often increase trust because the reader can see where the promise ends.
- Name the mechanism
- Source material claims
- Disclose relevant limits
- Remove invented urgency and proof
Applied example
Credibility example: generated customer statistics
A landing page says ‘trusted by 10,000 teams’ because that number appeared in a generated design example. The company has 80 trial accounts and no team definition.
- The claim has no authoritative source
- The number materially affects trust
- Design convention was mistaken for content
- A truthful early-customer statement is available
Plain answers
Questions to resolve before shipping
Does every article need a named individual author?+
Use the authorship model readers reasonably need. Consequential expertise benefits from a clear accountable person or editorial organization and background.
Can we use AI-generated testimonials as examples?+
Do not present fictional endorsements as real customer evidence. Clearly labeled illustrative scenarios serve a different purpose.
Should limitations appear near the claim?+
Yes when they materially affect interpretation. Do not bury qualifying information where readers are unlikely to connect it.