marketing-claims-reviewlisted

# Marketing Claims Review Own claim substantiation, positioning, comparisons, and first-visitor clarity regardless of file location. ## Workflow 1. Confirm pages, audience, and audit-only or authorized rewrite mode. 2. Build a capability map with implementation and runtime evidence taking precedence over marketing prose, demos, and roadmap material. 3. Classify material claims as `accurate`, `unclear`, `unsupported`, `exaggerated`, `stale`, or `false`. 4. Test whether a first-time visitor can identify the product, intended user, problem, mechanism, difference, limitations, and next action. 5. For each problematic claim, cite evidence and recommend `keep`, `rewrite`, `move`, `remove`, `qualify`, or `prove`. 6. Rewrite only when authorized, preserving distinctions between shipped, partial, experimental, planned, and unsupported behavior. 7. After an authorized rewrite, use `english-text-review` and apply material findings without weakening substantiation, necessary qualifications, or intentional voice. Use `docs-review` for repository-document structure and discoverability, and `docs-drift-review` only for drift caused by the current change. Comparative claims requiring external competitor evidence remain unverified unless authoritative evidence is available and its use is authorized. Do not infer capabilities from aspirations, invent proof, or force parallel agents. Finish with scoped claims, evidence, dispositions, authorized edits, and unresolved proof needs.