Free cosmetic claims evidence checklist

Free cosmetic claims evidence checklist

This checklist is for reviewing the evidence presented alongside a cosmetic claim on packaging, a product page, an advertisement, a retailer listing or other marketing material. Its purpose is to preserve what was actually shown at the time of review. That matters because a short headline claim can be qualified by nearby wording, an asterisk, a footnote, an image caption or a separate part of the page.

Use the checklist to distinguish three things: the claim itself, the information said to support it, and the information that is not visible in the source. These are separate records. A source may refer to testing without explaining the test. It may state an outcome while leaving the conditions of use elsewhere. It may also contain a consumer opinion that should not be recorded as though it were a formal product claim.

The checklist does not decide whether wording complies with advertising or cosmetics rules. It does not establish that evidence is sufficient, that a product is safe, or that a result will apply to an individual. It also cannot establish that material not visible to the reader does not exist. Its value is in making the edge of the available information clear.

Record the exact words, preserve the qualification, identify the stated support and mark what cannot be seen.

Complete one record for each distinct claim. Do not combine several claims merely because they appear on the same pack or page. A statement about appearance, for example, may be supported in a different way from a statement about an ingredient, sensory experience or comparative performance.

Step 1: Capture the claim and its setting

Begin before interpreting the wording. Copy the claim exactly, including capitalisation where it affects emphasis, punctuation, quotation marks, symbols, percentages, asterisks and any nearby headline. A paraphrase may unintentionally make a narrow statement broader, or remove language that explains the stated basis for the claim.

1. Write the product identity. Record the product name, variant, format and any version information visible in the source. If the claim appears to concern a range rather than one product, note that wording rather than assuming every product is included.
2. Copy the claim verbatim. Keep phrases such as “after use”, “appearance of”, “helps”, “tested” or “up to” where they appear. These words can affect what is being asserted.
3. Record where it appeared. State whether the source was packaging, a product page, an advertisement, a retailer listing, social content or another format. Context can vary between formats.
4. Record the date reviewed. This identifies the version of the material seen, without suggesting that the wording has remained unchanged.
5. Preserve the immediate context. Note adjacent text, captions and symbols that appear connected to the claim. If a screenshot or photograph is retained, it should show the claim and its surrounding qualification where possible.

Do not turn an image into a factual claim unless the source itself makes a statement that can be recorded. Visual presentation may be relevant context, but this checklist focuses on identifiable wording and stated evidence references.

Step 2: Identify the type of proposition

Classification makes a record easier to review, but it is not a verdict. Select the category that most closely describes the statement, then retain the original wording. A single claim can involve more than one category. In that case, record the categories and explain briefly why rather than forcing the claim into one label.

Classification prevents a common reading error: treating a statement about a process as though it proves an outcome. “Tested by users” and “users reported a result” are not identical propositions. Record the language used, then record any further detail supplied about what participants were asked or what was measured.

Step 3: Record the stated evidence and qualifiers

Next, separate an evidence reference from evidence detail. An advertisement may say that a claim is based on a test, a consumer assessment or an instrumental measurement. Record that reference exactly. Then note what the material actually describes about the method, rather than adding details that would normally be useful but are not present.

1. Identify the evidence reference. Copy terms such as test, study, survey, assessment, measurement, clinical evaluation or consumer panel only where they appear in the source.
2. Record the stated result. If the source gives a result, write what the result is said to concern. Do not reduce a qualified result to a simpler claim.
3. Note the stated group or sample. Record any visible description of participants, users, assessors or samples. If none is given, mark it as not visible.
4. Note timing and conditions. Look for duration, frequency of use, application instructions, environmental conditions or assessment points. These may limit the meaning of the claim.
5. Record the comparator. For a comparison, note whether the source identifies an earlier formulation, untreated area, another product or another basis. Do not infer an unstated comparison.
6. Copy footnotes and asterisk text. A footnote can be central to the claim, rather than a minor addition.

A reference to evidence is not the same as access to evidence. It is appropriate to record that a test is mentioned and that no further method detail is visible in the material reviewed. That record does not establish whether further documentation exists elsewhere, nor does it settle how a regulator or specialist would assess it.

Step 4: Mark missing information without guessing

This stage is about disciplined uncertainty. A blank field should mean that the information was not visible in the particular source reviewed, not that the information does not exist. Use clear wording such as “not stated in the pack image reviewed” or “not visible on the product page at the time recorded”. That keeps the limit of the observation attached to the entry.

Consider whether the source identifies the product version, the test type, the claimed outcome, the timing, the participant description, the usage conditions, the comparative basis and the location of any qualification. These are prompts for inspection, not a demand that every public-facing claim contain each item in the same form.

Where wording is ambiguous, record the ambiguity. For example, if a percentage is displayed but the nearby text does not make clear whether it concerns agreement, preference, measured change or another outcome, write that distinction down. Do not choose an interpretation because it seems likely. Similarly, where a visual before-and-after presentation has no explanatory wording in the reviewed material, note the visual context without assigning it a test method or result.

Keep personal experience separate from the evidence record. A reader may find a product pleasant, unsuitable or effective for their own circumstances. That experience can be important to the individual, but it is not automatically substantiation for a published marketing claim. Record reviews, testimonials and social posts by source type if they are relevant context, and do not merge them with a stated test or product claim.

The completed record should be readable by someone who has not seen the original source. They should be able to tell what was said, what was qualified and where the available information ended.

Decision rule for reviewing a cosmetic claim

Use this rule before making a note, sharing an interpretation or comparing one claim with another. It is designed to be retained alongside the checklist.

The rule is deliberately cautious. It does not reward a claim for having more words, nor does it treat brief wording as inherently weak. It simply prevents the record from adding facts that the source did not provide. A completed checklist is therefore a starting point for further examination, not a scorecard and not a purchase recommendation.

Limits and appropriate use

This checklist applies to the reader-facing presentation of cosmetic claims and stated evidence. It does not replace regulatory assessment, legal review, safety assessment, product development work, quality controls or review of internal substantiation material. A public pack or webpage cannot necessarily show all records held by the party responsible for a product.

It does not apply to diagnosis, treatment decisions, clinical procedures or practitioner services. It is not designed to assess whether a product is suitable for a particular person, including someone with allergies, skin conditions, an adverse reaction or concerns about combining products. Those questions require advice suited to the individual circumstances from an appropriate qualified professional or relevant public service.

The checklist also cannot authenticate a product, verify an online seller, establish the origin of a product image or determine whether an item is genuine. It does not investigate manufacturing processes, product contamination, product stability, ingredient supply chains or the accuracy of retailer information beyond what is visible in the source being recorded.

Do not use the number of completed fields as a measure of claim quality. A detailed public claim is not automatically better supported, and a concise claim is not automatically unsupported. The checklist is useful because it creates a traceable account of the material examined, including its qualifications and its gaps. Its proper output is a careful record, not a definitive conclusion.