ORIGINAL COMPANY-CONTEXT PRACTICE
Retrieve approved synthetic product claims by market
Original practice scenario: A fictional beauty-content assistant drafts descriptions from product evidence sheets. Different markets have different approved wording and document revisions.
Written for independent practice using company context; this is not a verified question from a company interview.
A REASONED APPROACH
Model answer.
Separate evidence retrieval from permission to publish a claim. The assistant should only draft within an explicit market, product version and approved source set, with reviewable citations.
Work through it
- Tag documents and claim records by product, market, approval state and effective date, excluding superseded or inapplicable wording before retrieval.
- Evaluate exact supported attributes, omitted qualifications and unsupported extrapolations using synthetic prompts, including requests to strengthen a claim.
- Require reviewer approval for drafted copy, preserve the evidence snapshot and test missing market context or conflicts between current sources.
Tradeoffs to discuss
- Structured approved-claim records restrict expressive freedom but are easier to validate than unconstrained generation from broad documents.
Common pitfalls
- A similar ingredient does not establish the same finished-product claim.
- Do not invent efficacy percentages or imply the exercise constitutes regulatory approval.