TL;DR
A statement can be accurate in an approved document and misleading after it becomes a headline, card, button or machine-readable description. Compare each final display with the exact approved fact. Keep its conditions attached, narrow wording that exceeds the evidence and remove variants that promise the wrong action.
Start after the factual review
This check comes after the appropriate person has verified the underlying claim. It does not replace evidence assessment or decide who has authority to approve clinical, commercial or legal statements.
Take the approved wording, its scope and any conditions into the page review. Then inspect the rendered variants. When a template shortens copy, check whether a condition disappears and changes the meaning.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission explains that the FTC Act empowers it to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. FTC Act overview. The presentation check below is an editorial method for preserving the reviewed claim; it does not establish legal compliance. UK, Australian, Canadian and other practice work needs qualified advertising review for the actual jurisdiction.
Carry the actual fact through each display
Copy the approved statement and its conditions into a review record before evaluating the page. If the underlying evidence is still uncertain, finish the people-and-claims verification first.
| Display to inspect | Scope test | Revision when the test fails |
|---|---|---|
| Headline | Does it describe the same service or administrative action as the approved fact? | Remove any broader availability or outcome promise |
| Card | Are the location and material conditions still readable? | Retain the conditions or use a narrower statement |
| Button | Does its label describe what the destination actually does? | Distinguish a request, contact action and confirmed booking |
| Short summary | Does it preserve the qualification needed to understand the claim? | Add that qualification where it is needed, or narrow the summary |
| Structured data | Does the actual field describe the same verified fact as the visible page? | Have the implementer remove or correct an unsupported assertion |
Do not treat telephone support hours as evidence of clinical appointment availability. Similarly, an office-specific service fact does not establish availability across the entire practice. Apply the tests to the real approved statement rather than inventing details to fill the table.
Check where conditions disappear
Read the mobile card, search-facing metadata, expanded page, reused banner and accessible text, as well as the editor’s desktop preview. If a crucial qualifier is cut off, hidden or moved far from the statement, change the component or the wording.
A footnote elsewhere should not be used to preserve an overbroad headline. Ask what a reasonable visitor would understand from the display they actually see, then have the appropriate reviewer assess that impression.
Record acceptance at the surface level
For each variant, keep the approved source statement, rendered wording, location, decision and reviewer. “Approved article” is too broad when its promotional card still says something different.
Send specific fixes to the implementer: change the button label, retain the office name in the card, or remove an unsupported machine-readable assertion. After implementation, inspect the final result. A correct change request is not evidence that the deployed component matches it.
Reopen the decision when the fact or layout changes
New hours, a different service arrangement or a shorter card design can invalidate the earlier acceptance. Keep the decision attached to the fact and component so the next editor can see why a condition was retained.
Frequently asked questions
Does this replace a claim-evidence ledger?
No. Evidence fit establishes what may truthfully be said. This check establishes whether the final presentation still says it.
Can every variant use the identical sentence?
Sometimes. Where space requires a different form, preserve the same scope or choose a more modest claim instead of dropping a material condition.