Feature, Mechanism, Outcome, or Typical-Result Claim?

Start with what the sentence asks a reader to believe

Feature, mechanism, outcome, and typical-result claims are not interchangeable levels of enthusiasm. They make different factual commitments. A feature claim describes a verified property. A mechanism claim explains a pathway by which that property could matter. An outcome claim says a result occurred or can occur. A typical-result claim tells readers what people like them should ordinarily expect. Compare the message actually conveyed by words, images, demonstrations, and omissions before choosing a category.

The safest category is not automatically the most useful, and the most persuasive is not automatically supportable. The governing question is whether current evidence fits the same product version, population, setting, comparison, duration, and result that a reasonable reader will infer. This article offers a decision framework, not a legal conclusion about any campaign.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Feature claims narrow the promise but still require verification

A feature claim such as the presence of an export control or a stated material is often easier to document through specifications, version records, or qualified testing. Its weakness is that readers may care little about the property unless the decision relevance is explained. Its risk appears when the surrounding presentation silently converts a property into a promised benefit: showing effortless success beside a factual feature can create a broader implied message.

Use a feature claim when the property is current, material to the decision, and directly verifiable. Avoid it when the named feature varies by plan, region, configuration, inventory, or device and those limits are not visible. Record the exact version and verification date. A technically true statement about an obsolete or unavailable configuration does not support the page a reader sees today.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Mechanism claims explain plausibility without proving frequency

A mechanism claim connects the feature to a process: a control may reduce repeated steps, or a layout may make a status easier to locate. Mechanistic reasoning can make a product understandable, but plausibility does not establish how often the benefit occurs, how large it is, or whether other conditions defeat it. Language, diagrams, and demonstrations should preserve that uncertainty rather than implying a measured universal effect.

Choose this level when the pathway is credible and useful but outcome evidence is limited. Name necessary conditions, alternative explanations, and the boundary between explanation and observation. Consequential health, safety, or financial mechanisms need qualified subject-matter and legal review; a causal story created by a marketer is not a substitute for appropriate evidence.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Outcome claims need a matching result, comparison, and context

An outcome claim moves from possible pathway to observed or expected result. Support should identify what changed, relative to what baseline, for whom, under which conditions, over what period, and with what uncertainty. A percentage without the starting value can exaggerate practical importance. A result measured in a controlled task may not justify a promise about everyday use.

Choose an outcome claim only when the evidence was available before publication and the overall presentation stays within its scope. State whether the claim describes a study, a customer record, or another source, and avoid blending unlike evidence into an impression of scientific certainty. The FTC substantiation policy is United States guidance; product category and jurisdiction can change the required review.

• Name the measured outcome and baseline.
• Match the advertised population to the evidence population.
• Keep duration and operating conditions attached to the result.
• Expose uncertainty that could alter the buying decision.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission

Typical-result claims carry selection and distribution risk

A testimonial or favorable case can truthfully show what happened to one person while misleading readers about what normally happens. Typical-result claims require attention to the distribution of experiences, not only an average or a chosen success. Ask how cases were selected, how many outcomes are missing, what support users received, whether conditions resemble ordinary use, and what a reasonable audience would predict after seeing the page.

Use this category only when evidence supports the expected range and material conditions can be communicated clearly. A small disclaimer beside a vivid exceptional story may leave the dominant impression unchanged. If typicality is unknown, publish the bounded case as a case, explain selection limits, or step back to feature and decision-factor information.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; OECD

Use a claim-strength matrix with non-negotiable stop rules

Create one row for exact wording, implied meaning, product version, audience, evidence design, population, baseline, outcome, duration, typicality, conditions, disclosure, potential harm, correction reach, and jurisdiction. Compare all four claim types against the same record. Do not use a weighted score to cancel absent substantiation, a material omission, or a specialist-review requirement. Those are stop conditions.

A reversible next step is to draft the narrowest useful version, ask an independent reviewer to write what it appears to promise, and trace every element to a dated source. Increase strength only when the evidence supports the additional commitment. Recheck by 2027-02-10 or sooner after a product, evidence, audience, interface, or legal change. OECD analysis of dark patterns provides independent context for testing whether presentation steers interpretation; it does not determine compliance.

Evidence: U.S. Federal Trade Commission; U.S. Federal Trade Commission; OECD