AI for Business Owners · Independent decision intelligenceSource-backed reporting · No paid editorial rankings
Owner AI Fieldbook

A practical, source-backed fieldbook for owners deciding where AI belongs in customer service, marketing, finance, operations, people, knowledge, and risk—with tests that fit a smaller team.

Owner briefings

Calling a product AI does not substantiate what it can do

FTC guidance is a useful buying and marketing filter for owners confronted with expansive capability and performance claims.

Answer capsule

FTC guidance is a useful buying and marketing filter for owners confronted with expansive capability and performance claims.

What the source establishes

  • FTC business guidance warns against exaggerated AI claims.
  • Claims should have evidence before they are made.
  • The guidance applies to businesses selling or promoting AI-related products and services.

Ask for the actual function

Replace labels such as intelligent or autonomous with the specific input, output, action, limits, and reviewer.

The accountable team should translate this point into a named workflow, affected population, source data, human owner, approval right, exception path, retained evidence, and review date. That translation is what separates an interesting AI development from a decision that can be governed and evaluated.

Request comparable evidence

A vendor's percentage improvement needs a baseline, population, period, method, and similarity to the owner's business.

The accountable team should translate this point into a named workflow, affected population, source data, human owner, approval right, exception path, retained evidence, and review date. That translation is what separates an interesting AI development from a decision that can be governed and evaluated.

Review your own marketing

Using AI to draft a claim does not protect the business if the claim is false, exaggerated, or lacks required qualification.

The accountable team should translate this point into a named workflow, affected population, source data, human owner, approval right, exception path, retained evidence, and review date. That translation is what separates an interesting AI development from a decision that can be governed and evaluated.

Keep a claim file

Store the approved language, supporting source, date, market, and owner for important customer-facing claims.

The accountable team should translate this point into a named workflow, affected population, source data, human owner, approval right, exception path, retained evidence, and review date. That translation is what separates an interesting AI development from a decision that can be governed and evaluated.

Decision test

Ask whether the source changes the decision itself, the evidence required, the implementation sequence, or only the language used to describe an existing capability. Record which claims are directly supported, which are provider statements, which require an independent test, and which remain unknown. A source-linked review should make uncertainty easier to see, not bury it inside a blended score.

Questions to take into review

  • Which questions have approved answers?
  • How does a customer reach a person?
  • Which customer need and evidence anchor the content?
  • Are reviews, endorsements, and images authentic and permitted?
  • Which accounting record is authoritative?
  • Who approves classifications and payments?
  • Which price and scope records are current?
  • What changes require owner approval?
The publication supports research and executive decision preparation. It does not provide legal, financial, accounting, employment, clinical, cybersecurity, investment, procurement, or implementation advice.