Who this is for: Launch teams checking whether their creative claims are supported.
What to prepare
- Proposed launch claims
- Approved screenshots or verified behavior
- Known limits and missing evidence
Define the claim and its evidence unit
A claim-to-screen matrix records the statement, what the viewer will see, the inference being invited and the boundary. It helps distinguish a demonstration from a decorative scene. A product logo can identify the maker, but it cannot establish reliability, adoption or savings.
The illustrative product here lets someone add a note to a request and assign a colleague. The available evidence consists of those interface states. No customer outcome, speed test or long-term result has been supplied.
Replace three unsupported claims
Use exact source material rather than imagining what a finished animation might suggest. The following rows show how the matrix changes the script.
- Claim: “Nothing gets lost.” Planned screen: a request list. Gap: a list does not demonstrate complete capture or permanent retention. Rewrite: “Keep this request and its context together,” if that behavior is verified.
- Claim: “Your team works faster.” Planned screen: an owner selected from a menu. Gap: there is no measured comparison. Rewrite: “Assign the next owner from the request.”
- Claim: “Everyone stays aligned.” Planned screen: a comment and assigned name. Gap: visibility does not establish understanding by every participant. Rewrite: “Show the owner and handoff note on the same request.”
- Proof sequence: show a named request before assignment, perform the supplied action, then hold on the same request with owner and note visible.
Protect the chain from source to scene
Use the same example object across the sequence. If one screen contains a different request name or account, the viewer may infer continuity that the assets do not establish. Either obtain matching states or clearly frame the scenes as separate illustrations.
Do not add a success badge, metric or notification simply to make the result feel stronger. Those additions imply behavior that needs its own source. Camera movement, emphasis and annotation can help viewers inspect evidence; they should not manufacture it.
A useful final review asks three questions: what was claimed, where was it shown and what remains unknown? If a reviewer points to a slogan rather than a product result, the proof chain needs work. Keep a record of revised claims so the headline, captions and closing copy stay consistent.
Review checklist
- Each claim names its specific evidence scene.
- The same example object remains identifiable throughout proof.
- Decorative labels do not imply unsupported behavior.
- Missing evidence causes a claim revision rather than an invented result.