Most claim failures are not disputes about the science. They are gaps between the wording used on pack and the evidence held on file for the formulation that shipped. This matrix is the working version of that mapping.
| Claim type | Minimum acceptable evidence | Where it usually fails |
|---|
| Performance (e.g. reduces the look of fine lines) | Instrumental or clinical study on the finished formulation, with a defined protocol, representative panel and statistical treatment. | Study run on an earlier formulation version, then the formula is changed and the claim is not re-tested. |
|---|
| Sensory (e.g. leaves skin feeling smoother) | Consumer perception study on the finished product, with the question wording matching the on-pack claim. | The questionnaire asks something broader than the claim printed on the pack. |
|---|
| Ingredient effect (e.g. contains niacinamide, known to support barrier function) | Published literature at a comparable concentration and vehicle, plus proof the finished product delivers that concentration. | Literature at 5% cited for a product formulated at 0.5%. |
|---|
| Free-from | Evidence the substance and its functional equivalents are absent, and that the claim does not denigrate a legally permitted ingredient. | "Free-from preservatives" on a product preserved by a multifunctional with secondary preservative action. |
|---|
| Hypoallergenic | Documented evidence of minimised allergen potential across the full ingredient list, including fragrance allergens. | No assessment of the fragrance compound, which is where most allergens sit. |
|---|
| Natural or organic | A stated methodology (ISO 16128, COSMOS, NATRUE) with the calculated index held on file. | A percentage quoted with no method named, so it cannot be verified. |
|---|
| Environmental (e.g. biodegradable, recyclable) | Test method and standard referenced, scope stated (product, packaging or both), and consistency with the Green Claims and packaging rules of each market. | Product-level claim carried onto packaging that is not recyclable in the market of sale. |
|---|
| Safety or skin compatibility | Dermatological or ophthalmological testing on the finished product, tied to the batch and formula version tested. | Certificate on file but no traceability to the current formula version. |
|---|
The common thread is version control. Every row fails in the same way: the evidence was valid for a formulation that is no longer the one on shelf. Holding claims against the formula version, as cosmetic formulation software and the cosmetics regulatory workflow platform do, turns that from an audit exercise into a flag at the point of change.
