Persuasion built in, proof required
Most tools write whatever you ask for and leave you to worry about whether it is true. This one builds on seven established persuasion levers, then refuses every claim it cannot trace back to something you supplied.
1. The page
Open your product page, select all, copy, paste it here. Formatting and markup are fine — we strip them. Nothing leaves your browser.
The platform that collected them — Judge.me, Yotpo, Shopify, Google, Amazon.
Shipping cutoffs are the most defensible urgency there is. Leave blank if nothing genuinely expires.
This is the only thing that substantiates "40% warmer", "clinically proven" or "100% natural". A certificate does not.
Superlatives need a source and a period. Leave blank if there is no specific ranking you are pointing at.
Runs entirely in your browser. No upload, no account, no stored data.
How this is scored
Seven mechanisms drawn from the primary social-psychology literature, cited to source. The rules, weighting and substantiation model are our own.
- Crowd Evidence
- Under uncertainty, buyers copy the behaviour of people similar to themselves. Specific, attributable numbers do this work; vague superlatives do not.
- Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren (1990), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58(6) — descriptive vs. injunctive norms
- Credentials
- Buyers defer to demonstrated expertise. The transferable version is a credential you can produce on request, not an adjective.
- Milgram (1963), J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67(4) — deference to legitimate authority
- Genuine Constraint
- A real limit on supply or time raises perceived value through loss framing. A fabricated limit is the single fastest way to destroy repeat purchase.
- Worchel, Lee & Adewole (1975), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32(5) — the cookie-jar scarcity study
- Give First
- Unrequested value delivered before the ask creates a felt obligation to reciprocate. Free shipping, a sizing tool, a real guide.
- Regan (1971), J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 7(6) — favour-then-request compliance
- Small Yes
- A small, voluntary, low-friction action makes the larger purchase consistent with a choice the buyer has already made.
- Freedman & Fraser (1966), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4(2) — foot-in-the-door compliance
- Affinity
- Buyers buy from people and brands they like. Origin, faces, and plain second-person language beat corporate register.
- Burger et al. (2004), Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(1) — incidental similarity and compliance
- Shared Identity
- Stronger than liking: the buyer and the brand are categorised as the same kind of people. "For X" beats "loved by X".
- Tajfel et al. (1971), Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1(2) — minimal group categorisation
This tool is not legal advice. It flags claims that typically require substantiation under advertising standards so you can review them with your own counsel.
The seven levers
Drawn from the primary social-psychology literature and cited to source. The rule library, weighting and substantiation model are our own.
- Crowd Evidence
- Under uncertainty, buyers copy the behaviour of people similar to themselves. Specific, attributable numbers do this work; vague superlatives do not.
- Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren (1990), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58(6) — descriptive vs. injunctive norms
- Credentials
- Buyers defer to demonstrated expertise. The transferable version is a credential you can produce on request, not an adjective.
- Milgram (1963), J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67(4) — deference to legitimate authority
- Genuine Constraint
- A real limit on supply or time raises perceived value through loss framing. A fabricated limit is the single fastest way to destroy repeat purchase.
- Worchel, Lee & Adewole (1975), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32(5) — the cookie-jar scarcity study
- Give First
- Unrequested value delivered before the ask creates a felt obligation to reciprocate. Free shipping, a sizing tool, a real guide.
- Regan (1971), J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 7(6) — favour-then-request compliance
- Small Yes
- A small, voluntary, low-friction action makes the larger purchase consistent with a choice the buyer has already made.
- Freedman & Fraser (1966), J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4(2) — foot-in-the-door compliance
- Affinity
- Buyers buy from people and brands they like. Origin, faces, and plain second-person language beat corporate register.
- Burger et al. (2004), Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(1) — incidental similarity and compliance
- Shared Identity
- Stronger than liking: the buyer and the brand are categorised as the same kind of people. "For X" beats "loved by X".
- Tajfel et al. (1971), Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1(2) — minimal group categorisation
Not legal advice. The check flags claims that typically require substantiation under advertising standards so you can review them with your own counsel.