Claims strategy · Scientific evidence
Evidence is not the end of a claim.
It is its architecture.
I help beauty brands and ingredient suppliers decide what to test, and why, before the study budget is committed.
Who it is for
Four teams, four different problems
Beauty brands
You need a claim that sells, survives regulatory review and still matches what the study can actually demonstrate.
Ingredient suppliers
Your mechanism is solid, but the evidence package does not yet convince a formulator's scientific committee.
CROs and laboratories
Clients arrive with a test request instead of a decision, and the protocol ends up answering the wrong question.
Investors and M&A teams
You need to know whether a target's claims are defensible before the valuation relies on them.
The real question
Does your evidence plan only produce results — or does it build an advantage?
Risk is not only a lack of data. It is investing in data that does not answer the right question.
A study that confirms what you already knew costs the same as one that settles a decision.
Four levers
From watching the field to activating the claim
- 01
Scientific Intelligence
- Strategic watch and weak signals
- Claims and evidence benchmark
- Opportunity and risk analysis
- 02
Claims Strategy
- Claim territories and hierarchy
- Evidence gap analysis
- Wording Green · Amber · Red
- 03
Evidence Design
- Methods, endpoints and panels
- Protocols and statistical plan
- Partner selection and steering
- 04
Evidence Activation
- Critical reading of results
- Claim matrix and substantiation file
- Scientific storytelling B2B and B2C
Method
Diagnose → Design → Decide → Activate
- 01
Diagnose
Evidence Gap Map
What you can already claim, what you cannot yet support, and where the exposure sits.
- 02
Design
Evidence Blueprint
Methods, endpoints, panels and sequencing, budgeted and ordered by decision value.
- 03
Decide
Decision Memo
One document that states what the results allow you to do, and what they do not.
- 04
Activate
Claim Matrix & Substantiation File
Wording by market, graded Green, Amber or Red, with the evidence attached to each line.
Each step removes one specific uncertainty before the next one starts. We start from the decision the results must make possible, not from a list of tests.
Selected case
A global anti-aging portfolio with three incompatible claims
- Situation
- A brand held three clinical studies on the same serum and wanted a single anti-wrinkle claim for Europe, Brazil and the United States. The endpoints did not match across the three protocols, and a fourth study was already budgeted.
- Decision
- The portfolio was rebuilt around the one endpoint measured consistently across the three studies, and the fourth study was cancelled because it would not have changed any decision.
- Outcome
- One defensible hierarchy of claims across three markets, one study budget released, and a substantiation file usable by both regulatory and marketing teams.
Dr Leslie Laquieze — PharmD · PhD · MBA
Ten years running international cosmetic evaluation programmes between France and Brazil.
Expert member of the Australian Sunscreen Council.
I help you decide what to test, and why, before the budget is committed.
About meClaims Intelligence
560 claims, 28 families, 14 jurisdictions
Scientific substantiability /100 — how far a claim can be supported by measurable, repeatable and transferable evidence.
Regulatory screening risk /100 — how exposed the wording is in a given jurisdiction, in bands from Lower to Critical.
- Claim-by-claim scientific scoring with its components
- Regulatory screening across 14 independent jurisdictions
- Target evidence levels E1 to E6 per claim
- Side-by-side comparison and export
Book 30 minutes
Bring one claim, one study decision or one portfolio. You will leave with a clear next step, whether or not we work together.