> Review draft, September 7, 2026. These original assets are retained for comparison. The photos need another pass; the revised short-copy candidate is in copies/01-revised-primary-v2.txt.

# Review before delivery

Reviewed each final primary text and headline against its locked full competitor source, the complete live article, offer, product reference and writer-pack craft. Final copy was finished before photo generation. The user delegated development of all four photo sets.

## Product and story limits

The live jar says 60g, not the earlier 60ml note. Both product photos use that live packaging reference. The article and offer are not independent substantiation. No supplied product-specific evidence establishes nerve repair, restored sensation, medication replacement, amputation prevention, fixed sleep/relief timelines, clinical 65% standardisation, deep delivery to nerves or the article’s medical conspiracy claims. Those assertions were excluded from these ads. The article is disclosed advertising with model photographs; Susan and Tom’s narrative has not been independently verified as customer testimony.

The offer has subscription and one-time choices. These ads make no no-subscription, price or bundle promise. Tom ordering three jars is a narrative event, not a current offer claim.

All generated photos are advertising-story illustrations. They are not customer-result evidence. Their identity, setting, gestures, visible anatomy and packaging were visually inspected. No before/after results, food remedies, red pain glow or fake expert photographs were added.

## Set 1

No factual correction was needed on reread. Kept the real left-sock symptom, 2:40 waking time and six-week cream trial. This shorter length is a new test, not a length already validated by the source.

The circle is a detail from the supplied advertising story, not an independently validated treatment technique. No claim that drawing it repairs nerves or produces relief.

## Set 2

Removed 'Tom didn't know any of that' because the article does not establish what he knew. Replaced it with the documented exchange: he asked, and Susan showed him the balm.

Tom's interest and later purchase come from the supplied narrative. They are not clinical efficacy evidence. No promised sleep or nerve-recovery result.

## Set 3

Changed 'the whole conversation with Dolores' to 'Dolores's advice': the article gives excerpts, not a transcript. The ending now points to her advice and Susan's buying checks instead of the earlier 'understand what Tom hadn't seen' invitation.

The mother's story is emotional context, not proof that medication causes amputation. Product name is disclosed; nerve repair, fixed relief timelines and medication replacement are excluded.

## Set 4

Changed 'I replied to her comment' to 'I messaged her about a comment' to match the article's private contact followed by the phone call. Kept the opening as a flash-forward, then rewound the events.

The article does not diagnose Tom with diabetes and does not establish a clinical result for him. Neither is added. His three-jar order remains a supplied story event.