About
Editorial standards.
The rules we hold our own published content to: review, corrections, and disclosure.
Last reviewed: 5 July 2026
What this covers
These standards apply to everything CIG publishes: this website, our guides and market pages, proposals, social posts and client communications. They sit inside our ISO 9001-certified quality management system and mirror the sign-off discipline in our Code of Conduct: every regulatory statement we publish is the responsibility of a named person who reviewed it.
Review before publication
Nothing on this site is published without human review. The workflow is fixed:
- Draft: researched against primary sources, following our methodology.
- Fact-check: every regulatory claim traced to the regulation text or the authority's own guidance.
- Named review: regulatory guides are reviewed by a qualified safety assessor and carry a visible reviewer byline and date.
- Publish: only after sign-off. Publishing pace follows review capacity, never the other way around.
Requirements vs. recommendations
We are explicit about the difference between what the law requires and what we recommend. On US content in particular, we distinguish MoCRA obligations in force from rulemakings that are proposed, delayed or withdrawn, and we label them as such in the text itself.
Claims about our own services
We hold our marketing to the same standard as our guides. Statements about CIG are precise and verifiable: we describe our ISO 9001 certification, our US Agent role with the FDA, and our state-inspected EU, UK and Swiss Responsible Person network in exactly those terms. We do not use absolutes we cannot substantiate, and we never state or imply that the FDA "approves" cosmetics, testing, or agents. It does not, and suggesting otherwise would itself be a violation.
Use of AI tools
We use AI tools to assist with drafting, research and site development. AI assistance never replaces review: every page is fact-checked against primary sources and approved by a person before it is published, and our guides additionally carry named expert review. We do not publish AI-generated claims of first-hand experience, fabricated statistics, or content that has not been human-reviewed.
Corrections
If we get something wrong, we fix it openly. Report an error to hello@cosmeticintelligencegroup.com with the page and the issue. We aim to respond within one business day. Material corrections are made promptly, the page's review date is updated, and the correction is noted on the page. We never quietly rewrite history.
Testimonials and reviews
Client testimonials on this site are real statements from real clients who agreed to be quoted. We withhold company names where clients prefer privacy, but we never fabricate reviews, use AI-generated testimonials, or condition anything of value on positive feedback, consistent with the FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (16 CFR Part 465).
Freshness
Regulatory content is re-reviewed on a recurring cycle and sooner when a rule changes. A date on this site means the content behind it was actually reviewed on that date. We never refresh a date without reviewing the page.
Accountability
Responsibility for published content sits with named people: Shervin Yavari is responsible for this site's content, and regulatory guides are reviewed by a named, qualified safety assessor. Concerns about anything we publish can go to hello@cosmeticintelligencegroup.com.