Draft campaign copy inside a claim vocabulary that has already been cleared, bind each objective claim to the evidence behind it, and hold the send for the reviewer who signs claims.
Pull the brief, the product record, the cleared claim vocabulary and the audience state from supported CRM.
02
Line up the product facts against the substantiation that exists for them, each with its document of record.
Reason
03
Write copy and channel variants inside the vocabulary already cleared for that category.
04
Leave the statutory template regions alone — sender identity, postal address, unsubscribe, advertisement identifier.
05
Tie each objective claim to a claim identifier, its evidence and its expiry date.
Decide
06
Stop an asset where a bound claim is missing or expired, or where wording leaves the cleared list.
07
Put health, environmental, origin, price-comparison and endorsement claims in front of the regulatory-claims reviewer.
Out
08
Keep the prompt, the model version, the sources, the reviewer and the clearance time with the asset.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent drafts and versions copy; the regulatory-claims reviewer clears each objective claim before dissemination, and the brand stays the advertiser.
Example workflow
One asset, brief to send
AgentHuman
1Campaign brief receivedLifecycle platform, campaign calendar, DAM request or paid-media brief
2Sources assembledProduct record, substantiation dossier, cleared vocabulary and audience consent state
3Copy draftedChannel variants, bound claims, flagged phrasing and confidence
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the send
The stack nests. What survives a layer is named in the map beneath it.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model
L6Rollback / safe modeCut the agent back to unbound drafts when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, claim-vocabulary and template-region changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the prompt, the sources, the bound claims, the reviewer and the send time.Record
L3Reviewer clearanceHold assets for the named claims reviewer; it governs release, not whether a cleared claim is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest copy against the cleared vocabulary, the blocked-term list and the locked template regions; a failure returns the asset.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence assets to a brand-legal read before the reviewer sees them.Require review
Model coreAsset produced — channel variants, bound claims, flagged phrasing and confidence
L1 – L2Test whether an asset may stand
L3Puts the release in a reviewer's hands
L4 – L5Retain the substantiation behind each claim
L6Reverts to draft-only when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole path to the send — not only the finished headline.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the message the recipient opens
Depth of coverage ▼
E1Final-output evaluationDid each objective claim carry unexpired substantiation signed before the send?
E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right product record, dossier and cleared vocabulary?
E3Tool evaluationDid it write to the correct campaign and the correct audience?
E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence assets actually attract more reviewer amendments?
E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific claim categories?
E6Business outcomeHow many delivered assets needed a correction or a follow-up notice?
Floor — the claim that reaches the market
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes across the drafting lifecycle.
Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →
01 · Retrieval1 mode
AD-03
Expired reference price
A cached promotional price becomes a was-now comparison never actually offered.
Take the all-asset baseline first: across delivered creative the unsubstantiated-claim rate is small. Split the same rate by claim family and channel and a few cohorts carry.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Health claims sent by SMS
4.5%
3.0×
Review
Environmental and origin in paid social
3.6%
2.4×
Review
Former-price promotional email
1.8%
1.2×
Watch
Lifecycle email, no objective claim
0.9%
0.6×
Normal
Bar: unsubstantiated-claim lift vs. the all-asset baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The test is what proves a cycle closed
An explanation closes nothing here. The cycle ends with a case the next release has to clear.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Unsubstantiated claims rise in one channel.
02Diagnose
Which link gave way — the dossier, the retrieval, the vocabulary or the pre-send scan?
03Improve
Marketer and reviewer agree the change, and it ships against a version.
04Verify
A failing case stops the release, not a reviewer's judgement.
05Learn
The case sticks, and the claim-review checklist moves with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Every following cycle starts from a longer suite than this one.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, drafting workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Campaign workflow discovery and boundary definition.
02CRM, messaging and DAM source assessment.
03Claim-vocabulary, dossier and template-region mapping.
04Product-record and audience-state ingestion.
05Drafting logic and claim binding.
06Confidence scoring and reviewer routing.
07Claims-review workflow.
08Marketing-stack and messaging integration.
09Claim regression cases.
10Guardrails and clearance controls.
11Substantiation-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne brand, one channelProductionProduction campaign volumeAdvancedMultiple brands / markets
Introduced at Pilot
Drafting to your cleared vocabulary✓✓✓
Reviewer clearance✓✓✓
Claim-substantiation baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by channel—✓✓
Clearance workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved campaign write-back—✓✓
Marketing-stack integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-market claim rules——✓
Multi-stage brand approvals——✓
High send volume——✓
Enterprise brand controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your substantiation dossier and claim records→Claim-vocabulary and evidence mappingWeek 1
02Representative campaigns already sent→Drafting baseline, tone extraction and claim bindingWeek 2
03Your brand voice and cleared phrasing→Claim-vocabulary mapping and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→CRM, messaging and DAM assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Claims that should never have run→Claim cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06Which claims may never leave without a reviewer→Clearance scoring, review routing and controlsWeek 3
07A named reviewer to clear claims→Claims-review workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Bands track the weeks work actually runs in, so the fifth carries two phases rather than one padded one.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Campaign workflow discovery, claim mapping and the automation boundaryW2Brand and consent sources in placeW3Drafting logic, confidence scoring and clearance controlsW4Claim testing and clearance guardrailsW5Messaging integration, pilot campaigns and targeted correctionsW6A live campaign cleared by the reviewer, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandThe bars follow the workstreams, not the calendar. Week 5 doubles for a reason.
At the end of W6Validation complete; Agent Care holds the monitoring from week seven.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Retail AI agent
Build a marketing-content agent around the reviewer who clears your claims.
Show us your claim dossier, your channels and your send calendar. Your regulatory-claims reviewer decides what may go out, so we map the drafting workflow around them, set the automation boundary and name what never leaves unsigned.
