My audit workflow combines claim extraction, evidence traceability mapping, communication-risk screening, and methodological review to generate a structured assessment of how well public-facing narratives align with the underlying science.

Who is this for

Biotech and microbiome companies: Stress-test press releases, white papers, and messaging before they go public.
Investors and diligence teams: See whether the story being sold is actually anchored to the underlying science.
Scientific affairs and communications teams: Tighten evidence fidelity without draining the life out of the message.
Journalists and media teams: Separate what the paper found from what experts inferred.

The Framework

The audit looks at four signals

Narrative drift: How far the public-facing story moves away from the source evidence.
Claim traceability: Whether specific public claims can be mapped back to specific claims in the paper.
Communication risk: Whether the messaging pushes readers toward interpretation, concern, or action beyond what the evidence directly supports.
Source-study stability: Whether the paper itself shows methodological instability, reproducibility problems, or analytical variability that should limit strong public claims.

What You get

A typical audit includes:

source paper vs press release or article comparison
claim-by-claim evidence traceability map
communication risk assessment
methodological stability review
concise written memo with findings and implications
optional redline or messaging recommendations

Sample case study