AI product copy: 3 steps to keep unsupported claims out
Give AI only supported product claims, then have a person check added capabilities before publishing the copy.
Key points
- Link claims to evidence
- Let AI reword; hold unconfirmed claims
- Check copy and claims separately
Overview diagram in preparation
Contents
Tie each permitted claim to product evidence
A&A perspective
Evidence for product copy means supplier documents or records that support the properties and features of that specific item. Before asking AI for a draft, connect every permitted claim to its evidence. Natural wording and a product actually having the claimed capability require separate checks.
Hypothetical example
Suppose your company sells a fabric pouch. This is a fictional example. The supplier sheet says only “blue” and “zippered,” but the AI draft calls it a “waterproof pouch for worry-free rainy days.” Editing the wording alone does not make that copy ready to publish.
From the sources
Microsoft Business Central, business software that also manages product information, includes Copilot for drafting marketing text. Its official instructions describe using item attributes, descriptions, categories and style settings. Users choose attributes, then review and edit the generated draft before saving it.
A&A perspective
The useful distinction here is between information about the item and settings for writing style. Automate & Augment (A&A), the organization writing this article, used that distinction to design a review card for small teams. The proposal adds review fields to an existing product register; it does not require dedicated software.
A&A perspective
The card records the item number, the claim you want in the copy, supplier evidence, permitted rewording and unresolved claims. A claim here is a feature you want customers to understand. Record the relevant passage and version or date, as well as the document name. Match the item number too, so that evidence for another product in the same series is not reused.
Hypothetical example
For the pouch, link “blue” to the color field and “zippered” to the specification field. Move “waterproof” to the unresolved field because there is no matching evidence. “It seems popular” or “another store says so” is not a record establishing this item’s performance.
A&A perspective
The card does not guarantee that the source documents are correct. If supplier documents conflict, the person responsible for the product must resolve the conflict before the material goes to AI. The related article “Catch product data errors before returns rise: check 30 items with AI” covers checking dimensions and materials already on record.
Hold added performance claims separately from rewording
A&A perspective
Limit AI to rearranging and rewording confirmed information. If the draft adds a performance claim, hold it before judging how well the sentence reads. Treating a softer phrase as sufficient can leave the unsupported capability in the copy, only expressed less strongly.
Hypothetical example
Changing “blue” to “a blue pouch” rephrases the same feature. Changing “zippered” to “water is less likely to get in” adds a capability absent from the source. Even replacing “waterproof” with “easy to use on rainy days” needs review for a new promise about use in wet conditions.
From the sources
Microsoft’s official FAQ says that generated content may not be factual or appropriate. It assigns users responsibility for reviewing and editing the content to make it accurate and appropriate.
A&A perspective
A feature that accepts product attributes still needs human review. In A&A’s proposed workflow, an instruction to use only supplied information is not enough to authorize publication. Each draft claim is checked against the evidence card, and additions without an explainable basis remain unresolved. This is a workflow proposal, not a description of a standard Microsoft feature.
A&A perspective
Ask AI to provide the supporting passage for each claim alongside the draft. That mapping itself must also be checked. Finding the same word in a document is insufficient. A person must check whether a passage refers to another product, or whether a conditional statement has been applied to this item without its conditions.
Hypothetical example
The unresolved field might say, “Waterproof: ask the supplier to confirm the item and conditions of use.” Until a reply arrives, draft only from the confirmed blue color and zipper. If waterproofing is the main selling point, the owner decides whether to sell without that claim or wait for confirmation before publishing.
A&A perspective
Adjusting tone or shortening the copy comes afterward. More examples of a writing style do not provide more evidence for a capability. Saving the version with unresolved claims removed separately from the original draft also makes it easier to notice if someone selects the old wording.
| Original information | AI draft | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Blue | A blue pouch | Rewording the same feature |
| Zippered | Water is less likely to get in | An added capability: hold as unconfirmed |
| Waterproof (unconfirmed) | Easy to use on rainy days | Softer wording still needs evidence |
Check wording and performance before publishing
A&A perspective
Before publishing, separate the review of writing from the review of performance evidence. A contractor can handle tone and readability, while your own product owner checks evidence and releases holds. If one person does both, they still change the purpose of each reading.
Hypothetical example
For the pouch, decide that the contractor cannot release the waterproofing hold alone, even after finishing the copy. The product owner checks the supplier’s response against the item number and permitted conditions of use. Add only the supported claim to the card, then recreate the copy from that card.
A&A perspective
Record the reviewer and date on the card and link the final copy that will be published. A “checked” mark alone does not reveal which wording was reviewed. If a selling point is added just before publication, apply the same check to the addition. Copy edited after evidence review is not automatically the approved final version.
A&A perspective
In an initial trial, assess missed claims and review effort separately. Check whether any unconfirmed capability remains in the final copy, and record how often people reopen source documents and how long supplier queries take. If drafting is faster but checking takes more work, use that evidence to reconsider the input information or division of responsibilities.
A&A perspective
A new register is unnecessary when there are few products and the reviewer can readily compare the documents with the copy. Adding evidence and unresolved fields to the current sheet can be enough for a trial. With many similar items, checking for evidence belonging to a different product remains essential. Product count alone does not determine the review burden.
A&A perspective
When supplier specifications change, review the card and the live copy together. AI reporting no problem is not proof that a capability has been confirmed. This article addresses responsibilities in product-copy work; it does not explain how to judge advertising rules for medicines or health effects, or waterproof testing standards.
A&A perspective
A&A has not measured how this method changes review time or sales. An evidence card does not guarantee that reviewers will miss nothing. The design records who checked what. It draws on Microsoft’s instructions without implying that other AI products provide the same features.
Summary
A&A perspective
Connect permitted performance claims to evidence for the specific product.
A&A perspective
If rewording adds a capability, hold it as an unresolved claim.
A&A perspective
Check wording and performance separately, then publish the final copy that was reviewed.
Connect permitted performance claims to evidence for the specific product. If rewording adds a capability, hold it as an unresolved claim. Check wording and performance separately, then publish the final copy that was reviewed.
FAQ
Is telling AI to use only supplied information enough?
No. Each draft claim still needs to be checked against the relevant source passage. If AI produces a claim-to-evidence mapping, a person must check that mapping for mismatches too.
Can softer wording replace an unsupported waterproof claim?
Softer language alone does not justify publication. Check whether wording such as “worry-free rainy days” conveys the same unconfirmed capability in different words. This article proposes removing or holding claims that lack evidence.
Does this also resolve conflicting numbers in a product register?
First resolve the source conflict. “Clashing numbers in AI-made documents: 3 conditions to settle facts first” covers that earlier step. The card here checks capabilities added to a draft after correct information has been given to AI.
Sources & editorial note
Primary pages read for this article. Publication dates below belong to the sources; access dates record our research.
- Add marketing text to items
Microsoft · Updated 2026-10-02; original publication date not stated
Accessed 2026-11-02 - FAQ for marketing text suggestions with Copilot
Microsoft · Updated 2026-10-02; original publication date not stated
Accessed 2026-11-02