---

name: claims-gate description: >- Checks every claim in a piece of copy (ads, emails, posts, pages, scripts, briefs) against the claims the brand has approved. Keeps, rewrites or cuts each line, and lists the proof that would bring a cut line back. When a line the copy needs has no approval, it asks for a short sign-off on the 3 or 4 lines that matter and records the answer. Use alone when you already have the copy and a brand set up; otherwise run the playbook for the job (e.g. make-static-ads, make-content, write-outreach). version: 0.1.6

claims-gate

One contract for every playbook that writes copy, scripts, briefs, emails, posts, pages or captions. Only this atom ever writes a claim as approved; claims and markers already in the brand (from the GooseWorks app or an earlier brand pass) are read the same way. The calling playbook keeps its own extract step (on-image text, video scenes, page sections) and hands this atom the spans.

Say it to the human in plain words ("two lines need your OK before I use them"), never as tool, fact or playbook names.

1. Load the contract (once per job)

Which path. Use the older path (steps 1–2: the marker and its Claims you may use — facts) on every server today, including ones that list brand_knowledge_* tools: approvals customers already gave live there, and a chat sign-off recorded by §5 is usable at once. Also count a brain claim a person confirmed (step 5). Where the two disagree, the stricter wins. Steps 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 always apply. (The brain path, where only brain-confirmed claims count and a chat yes waits for the app, §4.6, applies once the brand's server says chat approvals are recorded only in the app.)

Local mode (no GooseWorks, the marketing-guide skill §5): the contract is gooseworks-local/<brand-slug>/claims.md, read and written by local-claims.md (next to this file) in place of steps 1–3 and 5. Only a row whose newest status is approved and that passes its checks (scope, date, the approver's own words, proof reopened) is usable; declined, pending and retired rows never are. The donts and musts come from brand-notes.md. §2–4 run as written, with local-claims.md for who approves and the record.

1. gooseworks:brand_read sections: ["learnings"] (lean is enough: it returns every must and dont).
2. Older path: find the marker: a must fact starting Claims sign-off (learn-my-brand, (a fixed format: the opening names its first writer and stays as it is). Read its status token and match it exactly:
   • signed-off → the claims you may use are the Claims you may use — facts, one claim per fact: verbatim, within the scope written in it, before its review date, with its qualifier.
   • pending-client or not-signed, or no marker → no claim is approved yet beyond plain product facts.
   • approver: tells you who may approve new lines (§4.2).
   • voice: provisional in the marker → label drafts "voice not yet confirmed".
3. Variants and proof (only when you need a variant or must show proof): gooseworks:file_read the current Brand record — the highest v<N> in a gooseworks:file_list of brand/records/ (the scope in the marketing-guide skill §2). Never use search snippets of it: they can come from its "Not approved" or "Retired" tables.
4. Never approved claims, whatever the label: kit approvedClaims, proofPoints, valueProps, description; knowledge_search ["claim"] rows; search snippets of any document; the live site (plain descriptions of what the product is and does, in the kit or on the site, still count under 7); press quotes, reviews or testimonials not on the list; a yes in chat that did not go through §4 below.
5. Brain claims (read alongside the older path). The brain keeps claims with a status (chapter 13, "What we can claim"; older Claims you may use — rules sit in chapter 14 with a status too). A claim is usable only if its status is confirmed and you have opened the full record with gooseworks:brand_knowledge_read and checked it: the exact wording, its scope (product, market, channel), its qualifier, its evidence, and that it hasn't passed its valid_until or recheck_at. Use it verbatim, within scope, with its qualifier. Such a confirmed claim counts even without a marker, but only when a person confirmed it: a claim marked confirmed by research or import, with no person's words in its record, counts as found. A found, guess or waiting claim is not approved, whatever its wording or whoever said it. If a legacy marker also exists and it and the brain disagree about a line (narrower scope, a retired or declined line), the stricter one wins and you say so. Playbooks never read claims from the brain themselves; they consume them only through this atom.
6. Always apply every dont (never-say, not public, banned words) and every must (policies, qualifiers, terminology).
7. Plain product facts are always usable: product name, price (only as 8 says), size, listed ingredients or features, how to use, current policies stated in a must fact, and what the product is and does as the brand's own product record, kit or site words it ("Goose makes ads, videos and campaigns inside the agent you already use"). Never benefit, result or outcome wording, numbers, comparisons, customers or regulated words: those need §4. Free-from wording ("no preservatives", "no seed oils") and nutrition numbers are claims too, even when printed on the pack: the pack shows them, the ad's own text needs §4. A brand-voice headline may express a plain product fact's meaning if it adds nothing (no number, result, scope or promise); an approved claim, number or regulated word is used verbatim.
8. Current offers and prices: the product record's price and offers count as plain facts only when the human confirms in this job that they are live (offers carry their end date). Nothing else about an offer ("best price ever", "limited") is a plain fact.

2. Check the spans

For each claim-like span the caller extracted (copy, headline, on-image text, badge, script line, subject line, caption, page sentence, and what a picture implies):

1. Puffery or claim? If a test could prove it false, it is a claim ("lasts 48 hours", "softer than cotton"). Feel and taste words that promise no outcome are puffery ("light, fresh feel").
2. Type and risk from claim-types.md (next to this file). Regulated categories (health, beauty, supplements, food, finance, kids) are verbatim only.
3. Quoted claims are the brand's claims: a press quote, review or testimonial reused in copy must pass for the claim inside it.
4. Implied claims count: a lab coat, a before/after, a "clinically" badge, a product name stretched into a promise.
5. Named customers, logos and backers. A named customer, logo, customer result or case study is usable only when the brand confirmed it (a usable claim under §1) — never from the site, the kit or a search hit alone. A plainly test-named brand ("Test Co", "Demo Brand", "asdf") is never offered. A name that matches another brand in the same workspace or organisation (the brand_read brand list) is a likely test brand — but agencies keep real clients side by side, so ask the human once: "<name> is another brand in your account. Is it a real customer that agreed to be named?" Until that yes, cut it and never offer it as proof; after it, it goes through §4 like any customer line. "Backed by <investor>", "funded by" and "used by <company>" need a dated public source (a press release, the investor's own portfolio page) before §4 may offer them; without one, cut.

3. Act and report

• Keep — the span is a usable claim (verbatim or a listed variant, in scope, in date, qualifier attached and legible) or a plain product fact.
• Rewrite — to a usable claim, a plain product fact or puffery. Never strengthen.
• Cut — anything else. Each cut is listed as line → where it was → why → the proof or OK that would restore it (e.g. "'won't break you out' → ad 3 headline → efficacy claim, not approved → a non-comedogenic test report, or your OK below").
• Never-say — cut and say plainly it is a legal or platform line, not a matter of taste.

Give the result in one short line per asset in chat; the cut list goes in the caller's file.

4. Scoped sign-off (when the job needs lines nobody has approved)

Run it when a line the job depends on is not usable under §1: on the older path, when the marker is not signed-off or the line is not on the list; on the brain path, when the line is not a confirmed brain claim (no marker is needed when it is). It approves only what this job needs.

1. Pick the 3–4 load-bearing lines (one question holds four) — the benefit line, the hook's promise, the offer — not everything the job could say; never a test-named brand, a likely test brand only after the human's yes, and a backer or customer line only with its source (§2.5). Prefer the brain's own wording (value props, product descriptions) over new wording.
2. Check who may approve. Read the marker's approver:. No marker: ask once who approves claims (local mode: local-claims.md § Who approves, which also keeps the answer). If it names a client, or the person says someone else approves claims, don't ask the person in the chat for these lines: use the claims already approved plus plain product facts, add the new lines to the Brand record's "Decisions needed" sheet for the approver (saved as §5 step 1; local mode: its pending rows), and rewrite the marker naming the new version, approver: client <name>, by §5's status rule. user_statement is the person's words (e.g. "Dana approves claims").
3. Put them to the human as one multi-select question with the host's question tool (at most four lines; a fifth goes in its own question). Each option's description starts with the exact wording in quotes, then what kind of claim it is, the proof on file or "no proof on file", and your recommendation (approve / approve with this qualifier / reword to … / leave out). Without a question tool: a short numbered list, one line each. Say once, in the question, that this is not legal advice.
   • High-risk lines (efficacy, clinical or expert, comparative, health, environmental, testimonials implying results) need proof on file. The owner's word is enough only for a verifiable fact about the business (who formulated it, where it is made, which awards). Without proof, recommend leaving it out or a safer wording.
   • A ticked option, or "Yes, approve 1, 2 and 4", is a sign-off. A bare "ok" or "all" to a list, or "your choice", is not.
4. If they decline or don't answer, ship plain product facts and say which lines were left out and why.
5. Record the answer (§5) before any line is used.
6. Brain path: a yes in chat does not make a line usable yet. Saving can't approve a claim: every agent save is found until the human confirms it in the GooseWorks app (found vs confirmed: the marketing-guide §1.4). So after §5, the new lines stay out of anything published, sent, launched or handed to a maker as final, until the brain shows them confirmed. Say so in one line ("Approve these 2 lines in GooseWorks and I'll use them"), relay the link if the save returned one, and ship this job with the confirmed claims and plain product facts. Drafts may show a waiting line, labelled "waiting for your yes", never as approved. The next run picks the line up once it is confirmed.

5. Recording an approval (the exact contract)

Local mode: write one row per answered line by local-claims.md (status, the approver's words, evidence and permission; superseded rows retired), then read the file back; no marker, no Brand record. No files (hosted chat): its last section.

Write in this order; field names and limits come fr