AI copy states everything with equal confidence. Someone still signs it.

"Clients typically see a threefold increase in enquiries within ninety days."

Somebody has to be willing to put that in an email, with their name under it, to a person who asks where the number came from. Before the page ships, the useful question is not whether the sentence is true. It is who would defend it.

Here is the specimen this article works from, written the way a drafting assistant writes when it is given a brief and no evidence:

For over twenty years we have helped ambitious brands grow. Our specialists deliver results, with clients typically seeing a threefold increase in enquiries within ninety days. Every project ships on enterprise grade infrastructure and a site everyone can use. Pricing starts at £2,400. Trusted by leading names across the sector.

Five sentences, seven claims, one register of confidence. The price and the outcome statistic arrive in the same voice, because nothing in the drafting distinguishes a fact anyone can check from one that lives in a document somebody would have to go and find, or in no document at all.

Sorting is the whole procedure. Each claim gets a type, the type tells you what would settle it, and somebody's name goes next to it. What comes out is not a feeling about risk. It is a table with an approver in the last column.

The last column saves the most time. Three of the seven types often end there, and cutting is faster than every other resolution. Run the specimen through that key and the ledger writes itself:

Two rows carry a paraphrase rather than a quotation. Writing out a security standard or an assertion of universal usability, even inside quotation marks, would put the exact sentence this article tells you not to publish onto a published page. The type is what matters, so the type is what the row carries.

AgencyProof "surfaces claims and compliance-sensitive language for review" and offers a "suggested rewrite where the audit generates one". AgencyProof identifies wording that may need evidence or specialist review. It does not provide legal advice or determine regulatory compliance. What follows is what a person does with the flagged sentence, which is the part no tool does.

Experience, stated as a number

The easiest type, and the one most often wrong by accident. "Over twenty years" becomes true, then stays in the copy through two rebrands, and the number drifts from a fact into a habit.

It is settled by a document with a date on it: an incorporation record, a first invoice, a first filed account. The client holds it and the client confirms it, which makes this the one claim type on the list that reliably moves from unverified to verified inside a single email.

✓Verified strength

Once the date is confirmed, write the year rather than the interval. "Trading since 2004" ages correctly. "Over twenty years" needs an owner and a diary reminder, which nobody sets.

Results, attributed to your work

The highest risk sentence in the specimen, and the one a drafting assistant produces most fluently because the shape is so familiar.

Specimen sentence, synthetic draft

clients typically seeing a threefold increase in enquiries within ninety days

The number nobody can source

Ask where it came from and the answers arrive in a predictable order. Somebody saw it in a deck. The deck took it from one project. That project had no baseline, or the baseline was a different quarter, or the increase followed a campaign the agency did not run.

None of that makes the claim dishonest. It makes it unsupportable, which is a narrower and more useful finding, and one with exactly two honest outcomes: attach it to a named client with dated figures they have agreed to publish, or cut it. "Typically" is not a third option. It is the word that appears when a single example is asked to describe a population.

Scope of service, and the thing you do not do

"Helped ambitious brands grow" survives review because it sounds like positioning rather than a claim. It is a claim: it says a prospect can hire you for that.

The evidence is your own signed work, and the failure is commercial rather than reputational. A prospect who reads a broad promise and arrives wanting the service you quietly stopped offering costs you a call, a proposal and some goodwill. Name the services you actually sell.

Pricing, and what it silently promises

"Pricing starts at £2,400" makes two claims. The first is the number. The second, unstated, is what that number buys, and the second one is where the argument happens.

Settle it from the current rate card, then check the card is dated. An undated rate card is the pricing equivalent of "over twenty years": true when written, unowned thereafter. The rewrite attaches the scope to the figure, because a price without a scope is a claim the client cannot honour and the agency cannot defend.

Security posture, written by somebody who never asked

A drafting assistant describes the infrastructure a site runs on with complete composure, because that phrasing is everywhere in the material it learned from. It has not spoken to the host, read a report, or asked whether anybody tested anything.

The question that ends the discussion

"Who ran the test, and on what date?"

With no answer there is no claim. Not a weakened claim, not a hedged one. Describe the control that actually exists, in plain terms, and let it be smaller than the sentence you deleted. A specific true statement about how data is handled outperforms a large vague one, and it survives the next question.

Accessibility, stated as a property of the site

A sentence claiming the site works for everyone is a conformance statement about a body of criteria, made about software that changes weekly, usually by somebody who ran an automated tool once.

What the page can honestly say instead

Say what was done, by whom, and when. Automated checks ran on these templates on this date. Keyboard navigation was walked on the main journey. A specialist review is scheduled, or has not happened. Every one of those is checkable, none overstates, and together they read as more competent than the sentence they replace, because only somebody who did the work would know to write them.

Endorsement, without a person behind it

"Trusted by leading names across the sector" is the specimen's quietest problem. It implies named clients while naming none, so it cannot be verified and cannot be corrected. Nielsen Norman Group's research on credibility puts the reader's reaction plainly: participants regarded website testimonials "with a healthy dose of skepticism, wondered if the stories were true, and noted that the website would of course include only positive reviews".

One named client with written permission is worth the whole sentence. Without permission, the row stays open:

?Needs confirmationCannot be resolved from public evidence. Someone has to check.

Which brings the ledger back to what it actually is. Every row is a record of a review, and it needs the fields any review record needs. The schema.org vocabulary for exactly that is ClaimReview, "a fact-checking review of claims made (or reported) in some creative work", carrying claimReviewed, itemReviewed, reviewRating and author. Borrow the shape: the claim, the thing it was made about, the conclusion, and who reached it. Do not publish the markup, which Google restricts to publishers who "clearly attribute the specific claim that you're assessing to a distinct origin (separate from your website)". Marking up your own copy is the opposite of that.

Sometimes the client reads the ledger, agrees there is no evidence, and wants the sentence anyway. That is their site and their call to make. It is not an argument you win, and it is not an omission you absorb: record it as a decision, with the evidence gap named, so the answer exists before somebody asks.

Then fill in the approver column properly. Not "client". Not "marketing". A person, their role, and the date. And be exact with them about what they are signing, because it is narrower than it sounds: not that the sentence is true, but that they are the one who will produce the evidence when somebody asks for it. Most people, asked that plainly, delete the sentence themselves.