Review
1444 facts across 22 clients. Two questions each: can we stand behind it, and can an argument be built from it.
Nothing here blocks anything. Strategy already runs on these — approving a fact only tells it which to reach for first. Ten minutes on your biggest client is worth more than clearing the list.
Two things the system found that disagree, and it refused to pick. Each carries both claims and the options the critic drafted — settling one writes how it was settled, because the next person to hit the same contradiction reads only that.
Government concentration restated on a revenue basis rather than a client basis, and 'about' hardened to 'over'
On the record
Government clients currently make up about 80% of its clients
Arrived since
Over 80% of revenue comes from government contracts and agencies
Why it matters: Client-count concentration and revenue concentration are different claims about the business. If the two are treated as one fact, either an unverified financial disclosure enters public materials, or the client-mix figure is quietly replaced by a stronger 'over 80%' with no evidence behind it — and the same figure underpins the private-sector 20%-to-30% target it is being measured against.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Online purchase eligibility restated as 'existing customers only' and generalised into a Singapore-wide rule
On the record
A customer can buy online if they can show either a purchase record with Onnie Lens or a purchase record / prescription form from another optical shop
Arrived since
Online contact lens sales in Singapore are limited to existing customers with verified prescriptions
Why it matters: Two load-bearing boundaries move in one sentence. Dropping the third-party-prescription pathway would close off every new customer in acquisition copy and funnel design, wasting spend on prospects the site would then turn away — or, read the other way, telling a first-time buyer they cannot order when in fact they can. Restating a brand purchase policy as national regulation also puts a regulatory claim into marketing material that nobody has verified.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Sourcing provenance: existing record says products/materials come from the US and European markets; incoming says raw material suppliers are in China
On the record
Parklab brings in its playground products/materials from the US and European markets
Arrived since
Parklab works with raw material suppliers based in China
Why it matters: Provenance is being used as a quality proof — it sits directly next to the approved claim that Parklab avoids the cheap material whose colours fade. If a 'US and European materials' line ships while raw inputs are sourced from China, that is a false origin claim in paid or organic marketing, and it undermines the fade-resistance claim it is meant to support. Neither statement can be safely used until the supply chain tiers are separated.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Returns claim restated without the 30-day window, and now includes exchanges
On the record
30-Day Free Returns - Perfect fit, or your money back.
Arrived since
Free returns and exchanges
Why it matters: 'Free returns' with no window reads as open-ended returns. Published in an ad or product page it commits the brand to a policy it has not agreed to, and the added 'exchanges' element is entirely unverified.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Sale items are excluded from returns, but the canonical guarantee is recorded unconditionally
On the record
30-Day Free Returns - Perfect fit, or your money back. / Perfect Fit Guarantee.
Arrived since
Sale items are final and non-refundable, excluded from the returns policy
Why it matters: The approved money-back line carries no exclusion, so it will keep being used verbatim over discounted stock — the exact situation that produces a refund dispute and an unenforceable advertised promise.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
In-house production claim covers smart glass, but the factory-ownership fact covers aluminium only
On the record
Owns its own factory for aluminium production (incoming, same batch)
Arrived since
In-house production for both smart glass and aluminium frames
Why it matters: Manufacturing-origin claims are load-bearing in advertising. If the factory only fabricates aluminium and smart glass is sourced or assembled, 'we produce our own smart glass' is a false origin claim — and the two statements arriving together make it likely a writer will merge them into exactly that.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Market-wide superlative asserted with no supporting measure
Arrived since
Widest range of glass products in Singapore
Why it matters: A comparative superlative against every competitor in the market is the kind of claim that draws challenge, and no count, category definition or source underpins it. Publishing it unverified exposes the brand; it is also the claim most likely to be repeated verbatim downstream because it makes good copy.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Slack notifications recorded as active, incoming says they have stopped
On the record
Slack notifications are active for both form submissions and appointment bookings
Arrived since
Slack notifications from the legacy system have stopped working, leaving the sales team with only calendar entries and no lead details
Why it matters: This is a backwards move in an operational capability, not forward drift. If the sales team has no lead details, leads booked during the lockout are being handled blind and may be lost outright.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Webinar length recorded as 60 minutes in the knowledge base, 90 minutes in the incoming batch
On the record
Runs an existing webinar as part of the funnel, in either a 20-minute or 60-minute format
Arrived since
The webinar funnel was switched sequentially from a 90-minute webinar to a 20-minute webinar in December 2025; the decision was made to run the 90-minute webinar funnel for now
Why it matters: The long-form webinar is the funnel the team has just decided to run, and its length is stated two different ways. Nine months of historical performance analysis is being split on this format boundary, so the wrong figure misattributes results — and a webinar advertised at one length and delivered at another is a promise the brand cannot keep.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Opt-in form architecture: per-funnel forms recorded as already built, incoming says a single shared form is still in use
On the record
A unique opt-in form was created for each of the five active funnels so that leads can be tracked at lead level, replacing a single shared form used previously
Arrived since
A single opt-in form has been used across multiple funnels, which the agency identified as a source of tracking issues
Why it matters: Lead-level attribution across all five funnels depends on which of these is true. If the shared form is still live, every source-channel figure in the CRM is unreliable and the funnel comparison analysis is being run on bad attribution.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Webinar length: existing record says 20 or 60 minutes, incoming says 90 minutes pre-December 2025
On the record
Runs an existing webinar as part of the funnel, in either a 20-minute or 60-minute format
Arrived since
Runs a 90-minute webinar funnel, which was the format in use before December 2025 — and a 20-minute funnel exists on Salesable but is not updated, so the 90-minute funnel will be run instead for now
Why it matters: The webinar length is the spine of the funnel comparison and of the nine-month performance analysis. If the historical period was 90 minutes rather than 60, every before/after conclusion and any client-facing description of the funnel is built on the wrong figure. No passage of time reconciles 60 and 90 for the same pre-December format.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit
Award count and placings conflict across verified records
On the record
We are BizSafe Level 3 certified and recipients of two industry awards. / Won bronze and silver at a marketing award in 2018 and 2019 (different category to the current one)
Arrived since
Holds four marketing event awards, across the years 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2025; placings include gold and silver
Why it matters: Awards are the core proof asset for the planned multi-year recognition display; a wrong count or an overstated placing (gold where the record says bronze) is an unverifiable public claim on the website.
Drafted options — clicking fills the note, it does not submit