Find AI claim substantiation tools and buyer checklists

Use these guides to review public AI product claims before a buying decision. Pick the closest checklist, review the evidence gaps and buyer questions, then check the exact vendor wording in the product claims checker. Start with Quick reference or Choose by task when titles look similar; use narrower pages after you know the claim pattern.

The guides help you classify a claim before checking exact wording.

  1. Start with the wording pattern

    Look for the part of the vendor wording that creates the evidence burden: a percentage, automation promise, compliance reference, ROI number, superlative, or vague AI label.

    "98% accurate" maps to accuracy evidence; "fully automated" maps to human-review boundaries.
  2. Open the closest guide

    Use the guide to see source-backed evidence gaps, buyer questions, and safer wording boundaries for that claim type.

    Guides explain what to ask for before you rely on the wording.
  3. Check the exact claim

    After you identify the pattern, paste the exact vendor wording into the checker to generate a Claim Receipt for that specific claim.

    The checker is the action step; the guide is the pattern map.

Use this when adjacent checklist pages look similar. Pick the guide by the review job in front of you.

  • One claim sentence

    Use the substantiation guide.

    Map one accuracy, compliance, automation, ROI, benchmark, or superlative claim to the evidence a buyer should request.

    Open substantiation guide →
  • One vendor page or claim set

    Use the vendor evidence checklist.

    Walk a product page sentence by sentence before turning the exact wording into a receipt.

    Open vendor checklist →
  • Pre-purchase comparison

    Use the due diligence checklist.

    Compare claims across sales decks, demos, questionnaires, DDQ answers, and public product pages before a buying decision.

    Open due diligence checklist →
  • High-burden marketing phrase

    Use the marketing claims checklist.

    Spot superlatives, vague AI-powered labels, outcome guarantees, and compliance references before checking the exact phrase.

    Open marketing checklist →

Summary pages covering multiple claim types — use these first to find the right pattern.

  • AI claim risk phrases

    Nine high-risk AI claim patterns — accuracy, automation, compliance, ROI, uniqueness — with evidence needed and official source basis for each.

    Pattern / review use

    All claim types · Evidence needed · Buyer questions

    "Fully automated" · "98% accurate" · "Bias-free AI" · "Guaranteed ROI"

    Read guide →

Catalog source context for AI claim evidence burden.

  • FTC AI claims

    How FTC substantiation standards apply to AI accuracy, outcome, and automation claims in marketing copy.

    Pattern / review use

    Accuracy / Performance · ROI / Outcome · Automation / Replacement

    "sue for assault without a lawyer"

    Read guide →
  • SEC AI washing

    AI use and performance wording from SEC source examples. Use as source context, not investment advice.

    Pattern / review use

    AI usage claims · Performance / Returns · First / Only / Best

    "make our artificial intelligence smarter"

    Read guide →
  • EU AI Act transparency claims

    Transparency, AI disclosure, and handoff wording under EU AI Act source context, with buyer questions for public AI product claims.

    Pattern / review use

    Compliance / Safety · AI disclosure · Human handoff

    "Fin AI Agent is more than a chatbot"

    Read guide →
  • FTC Operation AI Comply

    Named Operation AI Comply sweep patterns from AI lawyer, review-generation, ecommerce income, and detector cases.

    Pattern / review use

    FTC sources · Claim pattern · Evidence records

    "the world's first robot lawyer"

    Read guide →

Accuracy, benchmark, outcome, and evidence-support wording — what a buyer should ask for.

  • AI claim substantiation

    Map AI accuracy, compliance, bias, and automation wording to the evidence a buyer should request.

    Pattern / review use

    Evidence needed · Claim type · Source date

    "system can't be tricked by a photo or video image"

    Read guide →
  • AI vendor claim evidence checklist

    Step-by-step evidence checklist for a single vendor page or pasted claim set—not a full procurement review.

    Pattern / review use

    Evidence checklist · Buyer questions · Scope limits

    "use artificial intelligence to boost earnings for consumers' e-commerce storefronts"

    Read guide →
  • AI accuracy claims

    Accuracy and performance wording checked against field evidence, benchmark scope, subgroup results, and testing limits.

    Pattern / review use

    Accuracy / Performance · Field evidence · Benchmark scope

    "one of the highest accuracy rates on the market"

    Read guide →
  • AI detector accuracy claims

    Numeric accuracy, benchmark scope, false positive / false negative rates for AI detection tools.

    Pattern / review use

    Accuracy / Performance

    "98 percent accurate"

    Read guide →
  • AI customer support agent accuracy claims

    Resolution-rate, deflection, hallucination, handoff, and accuracy wording on support-agent pages, with buyer evidence questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Accuracy / Performance · Resolution / deflection · Escalation

    "resolve 80%+ of customer and employee interactions instantly across any channel"

    Read guide →
  • Bias-free AI claims

    Bias-free and fairness wording, with questions about tested groups, error rates, monitoring, and limits.

    Pattern / review use

    Accuracy / Performance · Fairness evidence · Subgroup results

    "free of gender and racial bias"

    Read guide →
  • AI ROI and cost-saving claims

    AI revenue, savings, productivity, and outcome wording checked against customer result distribution and cost basis.

    Pattern / review use

    ROI / Outcome · Cost basis · Customer results

    "quickly earn thousands of dollars a month in passive income"

    Read guide →
  • AI chatbot and LLM accuracy claims

    When an AI assistant or LLM claims professional-level output, this guide shows what task scope, qualified comparison, and failure-condition records to ask for.

    Pattern / review use

    Task scope tested · Qualified comparison evidence · Failure conditions disclosed · Human review boundary

    "world's first robot lawyer — generate perfectly valid legal documents in no time"

    Read guide →
  • First only best AI claims

    Uniqueness and superlative AI claims checked against market scope, comparison set, and point-in-time evidence.

    Pattern / review use

    First / Only / Best · Market scope · Comparison evidence

    "first regulated AI financial advisor"

    Read guide →
  • Hallucination-free AI claims

    No-hallucination, low-hallucination, source-grounded, and answer-validation wording mapped to benchmark and monitoring evidence.

    Pattern / review use

    Hallucination rate · Grounding · Error monitoring

    "very low hallucination rate (<1%)"

    Read guide →
  • AI benchmark claims

    AI benchmark scores, state-of-the-art wording, leaderboard claims, and production-performance transfer claims mapped to buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Benchmark method · Evaluation scope · Production fit

    "scoring 74.9% on SWE-bench Verified and 88% on Aider polyglot"

    Read guide →

AI-powered, replacement, and fully automated wording — where scope and human review matter.

  • AI-powered meaning

    Vague AI-powered, AI-native, built-in AI, and agentic AI descriptors mapped to workflow evidence and buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Vague AI-powered · Workflow role · Buyer questions

    "Power your business with built-in AI marketing tools"

    Read guide →
  • AI replacement claims

    Professional-replacement and no-human-needed AI claims, with questions about task scope, testing, and review boundaries.

    Pattern / review use

    Automation / Replacement · Human review · Task scope

    "the world's first robot lawyer"

    Read guide →
  • Fully automated AI claims

    Fully automated, no-human-review, and AI agent write-action wording, with questions about approval workflows, rollback, audit logs, and review limits.

    Pattern / review use

    AI agent actions · Approval workflow · Rollback logs

    "eliminated the need for human order-taking"

    Read guide →
  • AI washing examples

    Common vague and overstated AI claim patterns with evidence gaps, evidence signals, and wording boundaries.

    Pattern / review use

    Vague AI-powered · First / Only / Best · Automation / Replacement

    "AI content detector can identify AI-generated text"

    Read guide →
  • Human review boundary claims

    Expert-reviewed, human-in-the-loop, handoff, and oversight wording—what evidence buyers should request when a claim implies human involvement without defining it.

    Pattern / review use

    Automation / Replacement · Human handoff · Review boundary

    "Fin will provide instant responses and a robust handover experience"

    Read guide →

Privacy, security, and compliance wording — what evidence can support the public claim.

  • HIPAA-compliant AI claims

    Healthcare AI privacy and security wording, with buyer questions about vendor role, data flow, safeguards, and scope limits.

    Pattern / review use

    Compliance / Safety · Vendor role · e-PHI scope

    "HIPAA compliant"

    Read guide →
  • Secure AI assistant claims

    Security and private-by-design AI assistant wording, with questions about data retention, admin controls, model access, and safeguards.

    Pattern / review use

    Compliance / Safety · Security controls · Data use

    "Enterprise-grade privacy and security controls"

    Read guide →
  • AI cybersecurity claims

    AI-powered threat detection, vulnerability discovery, incident response, SOC automation, and frontier-model cybersecurity wording mapped to evidence questions.

    Pattern / review use

    AI cybersecurity · Threat detection · Vulnerability evidence

    "generative AI-powered security solution"

    Read guide →
  • AI transparency claims

    Transparent, explainable, auditable, traceable, disclosure, and source-visibility wording mapped to buyer evidence questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Compliance / Safety · Vague AI-powered · Disclosure boundary · Traceability evidence

    "Fin AI Agent is more than a chatbot"

    Read guide →
  • AI hiring and screening tool claims

    When an AI hiring tool claims fair, objective, or consistent evaluation, this guide shows what bias audit records, candidate disclosure, and FCRA evidence to ask for.

    Pattern / review use

    Bias audit record · Candidate disclosure · FCRA applicability · Audit publication

    "ensuring consistent, fair evaluation for every candidate"

    Read guide →
  • AI subprocessor and model-provider claims

    Subprocessor lists, underlying model providers, prompt-routing paths, support access, and regional-processing exceptions mapped to buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Subprocessors · Model provider path · Data routing

    "between OpenAI and its service providers"

    Read guide →
  • AI training data claims

    Training-data source, provenance, cutoff, customer-data use, and continuous-learning wording mapped to buyer evidence questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Training data · Data provenance · Model updates

    "We don't train our models on your organization's data by default"

    Read guide →
  • AI data privacy and processing claims

    No-training, zero-retention, confidential-data, regional-processing, DPA, and AI privacy wording mapped to buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Data processing · Retention · DPA scope

    "Your organization's data always remains confidential, secure, and entirely owned by you"

    Read guide →
  • SOC 2 AI claims

    SOC 2 Type 2, security controls, audit scope, report period, trust criteria, and AI product-scope claims mapped to buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    SOC 2 · Audit scope · AI controls

    "SOC 2 Type 2 compliance"

    Read guide →

Authenticity and substantiation standards for AI product reviews and endorsements.

  • Fake AI reviews

    AI-generated testimonials, review authenticity signals, and what genuine substantiation looks like.

    Pattern / review use

    Review / Testimonial · Social proof claims

    "rate your overall shopping experience so far"

    Read guide →

Buyer checklists for reviewing vendor AI claims before relying on them in a purchase decision.

  • AI vendor questionnaire and DDQ claims

    AI vendor questionnaire, DDQ, RFI/RFP, security questionnaire, and AI-CAIQ answers converted into evidence requests and buyer questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Vendor questionnaire · AI-CAIQ · Evidence attachments

    "We don't train our models on your organization's data by default"

    Read guide →
  • AI vendor due diligence checklist

    Pre-purchase checklist for procurement and due-diligence reviewers comparing AI vendor claims, questionnaires, and DDQ answers before contract signature.

    Pattern / review use

    Due diligence · Vendor questionnaire · Before signing

    "automatically makes any website fully ADA and WCAG 2.1 compliant"

    Read guide →
  • AI claim review boundaries

    Route broad AI compliance checker, vendor ranking, procurement approval, and claim verification searches to evidence questions.

    Pattern / review use

    Boundary · Evidence route · Buyer questions

    "SOC 2 Type 2 compliance"

    Read guide →

Marketing-page wording such as superlatives, vague AI labels, compliance references, and outcome claims.

  • High-burden AI marketing wording

    Spot high-evidence-burden phrases in public AI marketing copy and map each pattern to evidence buyers should request.

    Pattern / review use

    Vague AI-powered · First / Only / Best · Accuracy / Performance

    "the most accurate AI writing detector on the market"

    Read guide →
  • ASA/CAP AI advertising claims

    When an AI ad uses vague AI-powered wording, no-limits creative claims, or companion positioning, this guide shows what substantiation ASA and CAP expect.

    Pattern / review use

    AI function described · Content restrictions visible · Audience controls · Benefit evidence

    "No judgement, no pressure – just a friend who gets you"

    Read guide →

SaaS and software claim patterns where AI labels, automation, and compliance wording need closer evidence review.

  • AI washing in SaaS

    Claim patterns that indicate AI washing in software products: vague AI features, inflated automation claims, and compliance language with no supporting audit.

    Pattern / review use

    Vague AI-powered · Automation / Replacement · Compliance / Safety

    "AI-powered platform — no manual work required"

    Read guide →

Have exact vendor wording? Paste the URL or text into the AI product claims checker.

Check the exact AI product claim →