Cases

Two engagements, four steps each

Anonymised work, reported the way it was run: what was unclear, what was designed, what was decided, and what the claim looked like afterwards.

Skin & Dermocosmetics

A global anti-aging portfolio with three incompatible claims

Three clinical studies on one serum, one wanted claim for Europe, Brazil and the United States, and no endpoint measured the same way twice.

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.

Hair & Scalp

Strong in vitro data on a scalp-microbiome active, and no clinical endpoint a customer's scientific committee could actually use.

Situation: A scalp-microbiome active had convincing mechanistic data but no clinical endpoint a customer's scientific committee could carry into its own claim. Two customer projects had already stalled at technical review.
Decision: The evidence gap was documented from the customer's point of view, a short clinical design was written around a directly usable endpoint, and two laboratories were compared against explicit criteria.
Outcome: The active entered two customer development programmes with a claim the customers could substantiate themselves, without a second round of supplier data.