Main site

Advertising AI agent · Regulated claims & AI disclosure

Regulated-Claims & AI-Disclosure Compliance AI Agent

Read each asset against the rules of every booked market, match each claim to the evidence on file, check the disclosures required, AI-content included, and hand the reviewer a marked-up copy with gaps named.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your stack
Compliance review
Pre-clearance
After launch
Agent Care

What this agent does

Checks the claim, not the decision to clear it

In

  1. 01

    A draft asset is read for the claims it makes, and the markets it's booked to run in.

  2. 02

    Each market's claim rules, disclosure duties and evidence register load alongside it.

Reason

  1. 03

    Every claim in the draft is matched to a source in the substantiation file on record.

  2. 04

    Each claim's wording is tested against the rules of the market it is checked for.

  3. 05

    AI-generated or AI-edited passages are identified, and checked against the human-review bar.

Decide

  1. 06

    Financial, health, alcohol and gambling wording routes to the approval regime configured for that market.

  2. 07

    Every gap, mismatch and disclosure question is routed to the named compliance reviewer, never resolved alone.

Out

  1. 08

    The claim, the evidence it was checked against and the market rule it was tested on are retained against the asset.

  2. 09

    Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

Product statement

The agent reviews what was drafted, against the rules of the market it runs in — not where the ad runs and not who wrote it; the reviewer decides whether it clears, and the brand or agency stays the advertiser of record.

Example workflow

One asset, market to clearance

  1. 1Asset receivedDraft creative, the media plan and the markets it's booked to run in
  2. 2Evidence assembledSubstantiation file, market claim rules and disclosure register, each with its source
  3. 3Claims checkedMatched claims, disclosure flags, AI-content flags and confidence
  4. 4Controls appliedSubstantiation checks, market and category rules, AI-disclosure checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing clears at any of them — the agent checks, and the reviewer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence

Goes to the compliance reviewer to approve.

Low confidence

Adds a second compliance read first.

Compliance review

The asset is held with its matched claims, its flagged gaps and the confidence.

Approve · Edit · Escalate

Approved — released to run

  1. 6Asset-management system updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
  2. 7Outcome evaluatedEdit distance, flagged-claim outcomes, market acceptance and post-flight corrections

Edits

Every reviewer edit is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required

8 items

  • Clearing an asset for release to any market.
    • Deciding a claim is adequately substantiated.
    • Signing off an AI-content or other disclosure.
    • Deciding that the evidence on file is sufficient.

  • Automation boundary

    Agent acts unaided

    • ✓Read each asset against the rules of every market it's.
    • ✓Match each claim to the evidence on file, never.
    • ✓Check the disclosures each market requires, AI-content included.
    • ✓Flag every gap, and hand the marked-up asset to the reviewer.

    Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.

    • Clearing a financial promotion under section 21.
    • Ruling a health, alcohol or gambling claim compliant.
    • Creating or generating substantiation for a claim.
  • Changes to market rule sets or clearance thresholds.

Example output

One claim, annotated

Everything the agent checks is attached to the asset it was drawn from.

Regulated-claims output · single asset

Illustrative example
Asset
Comparative claim, video ad
Claim
"Proven to outperform every competitor" over an AI-generated demo clip
Markets booked
EU · UK
Evidence source
Third-party lab report
Confidence
83%
Attribution
Compliance-lead name on file

As received

Taken from the substantiation file and the market rule set — nothing on this side is invented by the agent.

Evidence checked

  • Lab test report
  • Market claim rules
  • AI-disclosure log

Why it's flagged

The demo clip is AI-generated, and the on-screen edit was spell-check only.

What the score decides

Below the configured threshold the asset picks up a second compliance read before it.

Action

ApproveEditEscalate

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value lands

Value 01 – 04

Every asset

From the claims and disclosure record

03Checking

Check every claim against its market

Match each claim to the evidence on file and the rules of the market it's booked to run in.

01Approved path

Substantiation comes before the claim

The agent checks whether the evidence on file supports the wording used; it can name a gap, but it cannot write the study, the source or the disclosure that would close it.

02Human review

Send review to the highest-risk assets

Multi-market assets, comparative claims and AI-generated elements are marked, so the reviewer's read starts where the risk concentrates.

04

Build an evidence trail

The claim, the evidence it was checked against and the reviewer who cleared it stay on the asset.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

  • Creative & asset management

    • Adobe Experience Manager
    • Bynder
    • Aprimo
    • Widen

  • Claims & MLR review

    • Veeva Vault PromoMats
    • Zinc by IQVIA

  • Legal & clearance workflow

    • Ironclad
    • Onit
    • Clearcast
    • Copy Advice

Agent

Regulated claims & AI-disclosure review

  • Reads the asset
  • Checks the claim
  • Holds for the reviewer

  • Media trafficking & delivery

    • Campaign Manager 360
    • Flashtalking
    • Innovid
    • Adform

  • Observability & evaluation

    • OpenTelemetry
    • Langfuse
    • Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the market

Controls nest inward. What the stack misses is set out in the map beneath it.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defence

Inward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeHold new assets at unreviewed when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back
L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, market-rule and disclosure-config changes.Track
L4TraceabilityRecord the claim, the evidence, the market rule and the reviewer's decision.Record
L3Compliance approvalHold assets for the named reviewer; it governs release, not whether the wording is right.Gate
L2Policy guardrailsTest claims against configured market, category and disclosure rules; a failure returns the asset.Restrict
L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence checks to a second compliance read before the reviewer sees them.Require review
Model coreCheck produced — matched claims, disclosure flags, AI-content flags and confidence
L1 – L2
Test whether an asset may clear
L3
Puts the release in a reviewer's hands
L4 – L5
Keep the claim and the evidence behind it
L6
Holds the asset at unreviewed when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the claims-review workflow — not only the cleared wording.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the asset the market sees

  1. E1Final-output evaluationDid every claim in the asset match a source on file?
  2. E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the correct market rules and disclosure register?
  3. E3Tool evaluationDid it read the correct asset and the correct market's rule set?
  4. E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence checks actually attract more reviewer escalations?
  5. E5Slice evaluationHow does clearance accuracy change across specific claim types?
  6. E6Business outcomeHow many assets needed a reviewer correction after release?

Floor — the outcome the advertiser answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycle

Direction of processing →

  1. 01 · Retrieval

    1 mode

    • DZ-03

      Superseded rule set

      A market's claim rules are read from a version predating this week's update.

    Stage gathers

    Draft asset, substantiation file and market rules

  2. 02 · Reasoning

    2 modes

    • DZ-04

      Human-review exemption misapplied

      A spell-check-level AI edit is treated as the substantive review Article 50(4) requires.

    • DZ-06

      Single-market rule generalised

      A rule confirmed for one market is applied to every market the asset runs in.

    Stage proposes

    Matched claims, disclosure flags and confidence

  3. 03 · Tool / write

    2 modes

    • DZ-02

      Non-existent rule cited

      A report names an FTC or regulator rule that has no such distinct instrument.

    • DZ-05

      Evidence backfilled

      A wording gap is closed with a rationale drafted after the claim was already checked.

    Stage writes

    Only where write access and approval policy allow it

  4. 04 · Output

    1 mode

    • DZ-01

      Market split omitted

      A result cleared in one market reaches the reviewer with no flag that another market differs.

    Stage returns

    The check the reviewer clears against the record

  5. 05 · Change / Version

    1 mode

    • DZ-07

      Silent rule-set drift

      A model or market-rule update widens what the agent will treat as sufficiently substantiated.

    Stage tracks

    Model, prompt, market rule sets and disclosure config

  • Sev-1 · claim clears outside the boundary
  • Sev-2 · an unsupported claim reaches market
  • Sev-3 · rules degrade, check routes to review
See the complete Advertising failure-mode catalogue

Affected slices

One clearance rate can hide a bad category

Aggregate clearance rates can look acceptable while a handful of asset types absorb most of the rework. Nestack reports the clearance-rework rate by category, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate

Illustrative example
SliceFailure rateLiftLift vs. thresholdStatus
Assets running in more than one market7.8%4.0×Review
Comparative and superiority claims5.0%2.8×Review
Assets with AI-generated elements3.5%1.8×Watch
Single-market descriptive copy1.9%0.7×Normal

Bar: clearance-rework rate lift vs. the single-market baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold

2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

The loop closes on evidence, not an explanation

A cycle closes when the unsupported wording is a case the next release has to catch. That suite is what the next asset checked is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stages

Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

  1. 01

    Detect

    Clearance-rework rate rises in an asset category.

  2. 02

    Diagnose

    The line that was true and could not be shown is checked against the substantiation file and the market rule until one cause explains it.

  3. 03

    Improve

    The correction is versioned, with the assets that motivated it attached.

  4. 04

    Verify

    A failing wording case holds the release until it passes.

  5. 05

    Learn

    The case is added permanently, and the market rules move with it.

  6. Learn → Detect

    The return edge. Detection next time runs against a suite one case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, claims-review workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

  1. 01Compliance discovery and boundary scoping and boundary definition.Week 1
  2. 02Asset, DAM and claims-record assessment.Week 1, Week 2
  3. 03Market rule and disclosure mapping and rule mapping.Week 1, Week 2
  4. 04Asset intake and claim normalisation.Week 2
  5. 05Claim-matching logic and evidence binding.Week 2, Week 3
  6. 06Confidence scoring and flag routing.Week 3
  7. 07Compliance reviewer approval workflow.Week 3, Week 4
  8. 08Asset and DAM system integration.Week 5
  9. 09Wording and disclosure cases.Week 4, Week 5
  10. 10Guardrails and clearance controls.Week 4
  11. 11Asset-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
  12. 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel

Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne market, one asset typeProductionProduction asset & DAM systemsAdvancedMultiple markets / brands
Introduced at Pilot
Claim-matching to your rules✓✓✓
Compliance approval✓✓✓
Check-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by market—✓✓
Reviewer workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved flag write-back—✓✓
Asset-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-market clearance rules——✓
Multi-stage compliance approvals——✓
High asset volume——✓
Multi-market clearance controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build price
Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from build
Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

  1. 01Your claims library and current market rule set

    Asset ingestion and claim mapping

    Week 1

  2. 02Representative cleared and rejected assets

    Claim-matching baseline and evidence binding

    Week 2

  3. 03Your substantiation files and disclosure policies

    Market-rule and disclosure-boundary mapping

    Week 1

  4. 04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports

    Asset and DAM system assessment, then integration setup

    Week 2

  5. 05Claims you would not want run

    Disclosure cases and the evaluation suite

    Week 4

  6. 06What no claim may run without

    Confidence scoring, flag routing, guardrails and approval controls

    Week 3

  7. 07Named compliance reviewers to check assets

    Compliance approval workflow, then pilot and production validation

    Weeks 5–6

Nothing else is required

Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Weeks are drawn where the work sits, so the fifth carries both evaluation and the first live checks.

Phase

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

  1. DiscoveryW1
  2. BuildW2 – W3
  3. EvaluateW4 – W5
  4. Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6

Week focus

W1Compliance discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundary

W2Source integration and the claim-matching baseline

W3Claims-review workflow, confidence logic and approval controls

W4Evaluation suite, guardrails and failure-mode testing

W5DAM integration, pilot assets and targeted corrections

W6One campaign cycle checked under the compliance lead, then handover

Reading the band
A bar covers only the weeks its work is named in — the week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6
Validation closes on live assets, and Agent Care takes over monitoring.
Duration
Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Advertising AI agent

Build a regulated-claims agent around your compliance workflow.

Show us your claims library, the markets you run in and who signs off. We'll map the review workflow, set the automation boundary and name what stays with the reviewer.

Typical delivery
4–6 weeks
Deployment
Your claims & DAM systems
Compliance review
Pre-clearance
After launch
Agent Care available

Nestack Agents · Regulated claims & AI disclosure

AGT-AM-16 · Agent Care available after launch

Build a regulated-claims agent

Four questions so the call starts from your actual setup — then pick a time that suits you.

About you
Your claims

No obligation. We’ll map the workflow, name the automation boundary and tell you if an agent is the wrong answer.