In this article
Read what sits behind the next step
A useful sales brief needs more than facts about the buyer. It also needs a true account of your own business.
The Brain holds your offers, your best-fit customers, the roles of your buyers, their problems and your case studies. Mach learns these from your website and sales files.
That knowledge can shape research and drafts as soon as it exists. There is no required approval queue for every entry.
This matters during setup. An entry can be in use while it still needs a rep's check. In use does not mean checked.
Start with the offer your team plans to sell. Check what it promises, who it serves, and which results support it.
Follow a claim back to its source
| Check | What the example supports | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Source | One project reported 18% less handling time | How the result was measured |
| Scope | That project and its stated conditions | Whether other customers would see the same change |
| Correction | Keep the project scope beside the number | Whether the buyer has the same problem |
| Next action | Ask for the original project evidence | Who owns that evidence |
Here is a made-up example. Tarang Labs, a small team in Pune, has a case study from Lakemont Credit Union. It says the project cut loan handling time by 18%.
An entry that says every customer saves 18% changes the claim. The result belongs to that project, under its own conditions.
Read the linked page before you repeat the result. Check the customer, the period measured, the starting point, and what work the project covered.
If those details are missing, keep the limit visible. An exact percentage with no clear measure is still weak evidence.
Fix the entry directly when its wording goes beyond the source. Then read the next brief or draft that uses it.
The table is a made-up review sheet, not a customer result.
Fix the entry where the mistake lives
A person edits the Brain directly. Entries from research and entries a person fixed carry different labels. Neither label proves the source is true.
A person's fix is protected from later research. This stops the same mistake coming back when Mach reads more.
A fix does not recall a message already sent. If a wrong claim reached a buyer, that conversation needs its own correction.
Check the entries linked to the mistake too. An inflated case study can affect an offer's description and the message built from it.
A source may also change. An old pricing page or a service you stopped selling needs a fresh check before the team relies on it.
A test on 12 October loaded 844 records and 1,538 links between them. Its writing checks refused 190 sentences and 46 titles.
Those counts describe that test. They do not prove today's accuracy, customer results or a standard review time.
Know what research can use today
By default, research reads live entries that Mach proposed and entries a person fixed. It does not wait for a person to approve each line.
An optional setting prefers confirmed entries within each knowledge group. If a group has none, proposed entries can still be read.
That setting is not an approved-only wall. Know the reading rule before you treat a checked label as a safety promise.
Checking knowledge and permission to send are separate decisions. Checking a case study does not approve every later message that mentions it.
See the Brain page for how knowledge flows. Check the review controls in Playbooks before you let messages run.
Check the riskiest claims first
Start with prices, delivery dates, security claims and customer results. A wrong sentence here can make a promise your team cannot keep.
Then check the audience and the offer. A true fact about the wrong service still leads to a message that misses.
Leave missing details open. A blank budget is not a zero budget, and a public job title does not prove the power to buy.
When evidence is thin, say what is missing and who can confirm it. Do not turn a likely story into a buyer fact.
Keep a short note of each fix and its reason. The next rep should know why the wording changed.
This article once said every fact needed approval first. That overstated how the Brain works.
Check one offer before the next campaign
Choose one offer and its case study. Open the sources, check the limits, and fix anything that promises too much.
Read one brief and message that came from it. Does the source support what the buyer will read, numbers and conditions included?
Treat that as a check you repeat, not proof that every later output is right. New sources and new buyers can bring new mistakes.
If the wording still goes too far, keep the message in review. Fix the knowledge or the draft before you approve it.
The claim-checking guide shows how a small wording change turns a source into a promise it never made.
Common questions
Who on the team should check the Brain?
The person who knows the offer best, often the founder at first. Reps who use the briefs should flag anything that reads wrong.
Where the numbers come from
The Brain's reading and fixing rules were checked against our notes and code on 24 October 2026. The examples are made up.
