THE DRM LAB — Ad Rulebook Rev. 2

Never state cures, heals, erases, removes, gone, permanent or 100% fixes as a product claim.

Wording · Literal product claims: ‘cures’, ‘heals’, ‘erases’, ‘100% fixes’ your scars. · “Removes”, “erases”, “cures”, “permanent results”.

Scope · Brand copy, voiceover, on-screen text, hook, end card

Notes · v1.6 hard line 1 and the ALWAYS FAIL list. Fails wherever it appears, hook included. Note that ‘removes’, ‘gone’ and ‘permanent’ appear in the B1 and ALWAYS FAIL lists but not in the v1.6 hard-line pattern list — see CF-07.

Never promise a timeline for results.

Wording · Promise a timeline to the viewer (‘results in 1 month’, ‘I promise you will see results’). The only promise the brand makes is the 90-day money-back guarantee.

Scope · All copy, all formats

Example · On-screen “RESULTS IN 1 MONTH” plus “I promise you will see results” → two timeline promises, both cut

Notes · v1.6 hard line 2. Naming the 90-day guarantee window is permitted; promising results by that date is not. A real person reporting their own timeline is not a promise — UGC-14.

Never state guaranteed skin outcomes, “will work”, or “results you can count on”.

Wording · Guarantee a skin outcome or use phrases like ‘will work’ or implied-certainty phrasing like ‘results you can count on”.

Notes · v1.6 ALWAYS FAIL.

Never state a clean, round or absolute percentage as a product claim.

Wording · A clean, round or absolute percentage as a product claim (“50% reduction”, “100% improvement”).

Scope · Product claims only — a real person’s own hedged estimate is not a product claim

Notes · v1.6 names the mechanism: “The hedge and the fact it is that person’s own estimate are what make it honest; a clean round number stated as what the product does is what fails.” See CLM-30.

Never say “FDA approved” in any form.

Wording · Claim ‘FDA approved’ in any form. This is a hard no.

Scope · All copy, all formats

Notes · v1.6 hard line 3. “Made in an FDA-registered facility” is the permitted short form — CLM-34, CLM-42.

Never “dermatologist approved”, “dermatologist developed” or “dermatologist formulated”.

Wording · Claim ‘dermatologist-developed’ or imply a dermatologist created the formula. · This is the ONLY approved badge wording — never ‘Dermatologist Approved’, ‘Dermatologist Developed’ or ‘Dermatologist Formulated’.

Scope · All copy; badge wording

Notes · A real customer or creator saying a doctor recommended it to them is their own words and passes — UGC-07.

Never “dermatologist-level results” or anything implying the product delivers what a dermatologist delivers.

Wording · Claim ‘dermatologist-level results’ or any phrasing implying the product delivers what a dermatologist delivers.

Notes · The named live ad “Save 47% OFF + Free Shipping” used this; the repair is “clinic-inspired” — CLM-36.

Never “medical grade”, “professional strength” or “pharmaceutical” attached to the product or serum itself.

Wording · Use ‘medical grade’ for the product or its components. · Attach ‘pharmaceutical’ or ‘pharmaceutical-grade’ to the product or serum itself.

Scope · Product and serum only

Notes · v1.6 states the split explicitly, which resolves AMB-04: “or ‘pharmaceutical-grade’ when describing the facility, cleanroom, water standard, or manufacturing process” is permitted — CLM-34. The replacement for “professional strength” is CLM-36.

Never “clinically proven” or “proven” for the product.

Wording · Claim the product is ‘clinically proven’ or ‘proven’.

Notes · “Proven” is permitted at the ingredient level for PDRN — CLM-39. “Clinically studied compound” is permitted — CLM-33.

Never imply any equivalence to injectable Rejuran or to injectable PDRN procedures.

Wording · Claim any equivalence or similarity to injectable Rejuran or injectable PDRN procedures.

Notes · v1.6 lists it as absolute, in the “Also absolute, unchanged” tail rather than the numbered hard lines.

Never claim the product treats discoloration, dark spots, PIH, melasma, keloids, or “all scars”.

Wording · Claim the product treats discoloration, dark spots, PIH, keloid scarring, or ‘all scars’. · Severity: hard_block on treatment claims only.

Scope · The CLAIM. Showing discoloured scarring on camera is the intended use, not a violation — VIS-29.

Notes · v1.6 scopes the block to treatment claims only, and B4 adds: “The product is for texture/pitting, not pigment. … PREVENTIVE language tied to scars is allowed.” Preventative wording is CLM-38. The older Derm Micro-Infusion page is a discoloration page and must never appear on screen — VIS-28.

Never imply the product is safe for active acne, open sores, inflamed skin or keloid scarring.

Wording · Imply the product is safe for use on active acne, open sores, or inflamed skin. · Imply the product is safe for keloid scarring.

Never use “#1”, “best” or any product-level superlative in brand copy.

Wording · Superlatives: No product-level superlatives (‘#1’, ‘best’).

Notes · A customer saying “best” is her own words and passes — UGC-05. The only permitted superlative-adjacent claim is that the 90-day guarantee is the longest in the category — CLM-18.

Never “pain-free” or any absolute comfort claim in brand copy or voiceover.

Wording · Write ‘pain-free’ or any absolute comfort claim in the BRAND’s own copy, overlay or voiceover.

Scope · Brand copy and voiceover only

Notes · v1.6 lists it as absolute in the tail. Repairs are “gentle” and “minimal discomfort” — CLM-37. A real person describing their own sensation passes — UGC-09, UGC-13.

Never use “up to 30x more effectively” without the full phrase, or frame it as a results multiplier.

Wording · Claim ‘Up to 30x more effectively’ without the full phrase ‘Up to 30x more effectively than topical application alone’. It must be framed as an absorption multiplier, not a results multiplier.

Notes · v1.6 files this as a GRAY AREA rule, not a hard line. The permitted full-phrase form is CLM-21.

Never claim superiority over any named procedure or brand — “better than laser”, “worked better than my $4,000 laser”.

Wording · Claim superiority over named procedures or brands (‘better than laser’, ‘worked better than my $4,000 laser’).

Never say “works for all skin types” without the fish-allergy caveat.

Wording · Say ‘works for all skin types’ without the allergy caveat.

Notes · The permitted full-phrase form is CLM-22.

State the 90-day money-back guarantee flatly, with zero hedging. Unconditional.

Wording · State the 90-day money-back guarantee with zero hedging as an unconditional business policy. · The 90-day money-back guarantee is the only claim stated flatly with zero hedging.

Scope · Brand copy and voiceover

Notes · The only flat promise in the book, and the only permitted superlative-adjacent claim (“longest in the category”). v1.6 ALWAYS PASS — never a fail either way. Split register: hedge the skin, never hedge the 90 days — BRD-01.

Carry a qualifier on every skin outcome claim.

Wording · Absolutes: Do not use absolutes for skin outcomes. Hedge everything about the skin with qualifiers like ‘helps improve the appearance of’, ‘visibly’, ‘less noticeable’, ‘smoother’. Qualifiers: Required for all skin outcome claims.

Put “Results may vary” on screen on any before/after, any personal result, and any results section — small but legible.

Wording · ‘Results may vary’ must be on-screen during any results section or personal result. This is the one visual rule that never bends.

Scope · Trigger: any ad showing a before/after or referencing a personal result

Notes · v1.6 hard line 5, and B3: “This is the one visual rule that never bends.” “Individual results vary” is an accepted second string — CLM-43. The fix for a missing overlay is the overlay, not the shot.

If the 30x absorption claim appears, use the full phrase: “Up to 30x more effectively than topical application alone”, framed as absorption, not results.

If an all-skin-types claim is made, use the full phrase: “works for all skin types, unless you have a fish allergy”.

Keep “at home” next to any clinic comparison, and next to any price contrast, so it never reads as the clinic treatment for less.

Wording · A price contrast like ‘$79 vs $3,000 clinic series’ must keep ‘at home’ attached near the price line so it doesn’t read as claiming the clinic treatment for $79.

Notes · The v1.6 example uses the product’s own price, which the program ruling bars — CPY-01. The attachment requirement carries over and now also governs any permitted contrast form — CPY-30.

Quote the dermatologist endorsement word for word, punctuation included, and attribute it. Never strengthen it, never paraphrase it upward, never use it to support “dermatologist-developed”.

Wording · Reference the Dr. Elena Dinkollari endorsement, attributed as given and not paraphrased into something stronger.

Notes · Any doctor on camera has to be real — “fake doctor” is a live accusation in the comment threads — VIS-05.

Whenever the ad — or a comment response — addresses which scar types it treats: name acne scarring, atrophic scarring, ice pick, boxcar and rolling, and put the keloid line on screen — “Keloids are a different type of scar tissue; this product is not formulated or tested for keloid scarring”.

Wording · Trigger: Any ad or comment response addressing what scar types the product treats. Text: “Keloids are a different type of scar tissue; this product is not formulated or tested for keloid scarring.” Must name atrophic, ice pick, boxcar, and rolling scars specifically.

Notes · v1.6 widens the trigger to comment responses, which v1.5 did not mention. B4 severity for keloid overclaim: hard_block.

For a visibly pregnant creator, or any ad discussing pregnancy-related skin changes: “Consult your doctor before use if pregnant or nursing”.

Wording · Trigger: Any ad featuring a visibly pregnant creator or discussing pregnancy-related skin changes.

Notes · v1.6 widens the trigger beyond pregnancy itself to discussion of pregnancy-related skin changes.

Name procedures and legacy products only as your own first-person history: “I did a CO2 laser, it did nothing for me”.

Wording · Reference named medical procedures (CO2 laser, Fraxel) or legacy brands (Bio-Oil, Mederma) only in a first-person ‘I tried it, it didn’t work for me’ context.

When framing value, frame it without the product’s own price: cheaper because it removes clinic overhead, appointments and labour — not because it is lesser.

Wording · Contrast price/value against clinic procedures by framing it as removing clinic overhead, appointments, and labor costs.

Notes · The frame is v1.6’s. The price exclusion is the program ruling — CPY-01. Contrast against a third party’s price is permitted — CPY-30.

If the light, room or conditions differ between a before and an after, say so.

Wording · If the light is clearly different, the creator naming it (‘different room, no filter’) works better than any rule.

A real person’s own hedged estimate of their own result is permitted (“around 60%”, “diminished by 60-70% after six treatments”). A clean product-claim percentage is not.

Wording · PERMITTED (brand 2026-09-22): a real customer’s own HEDGED estimate of their own result — ‘around 60%’, ‘my scars have diminished by 60-70%.’

Notes · The hedge and the fact it is that person’s own estimate are what make it honest. This is the device that defuses the scam gate — BRD-09.

The product may be described as a sterile, single-use 24K gold microneedle stamp (0.5mm) paired with a 0.3% PDRN regenerative serum.

Wording · State that the stamp is a sterile, single-use 24K gold microneedle stamp (0.5mm). · 24K gold microneedle stamp: 0.5mm, sterile, single-use per head.

Words printed on the box (like “Brightening”) are packaging, not a claim. They may appear in a product shot but do not become a product claim.

Wording · Packaging copy: words printed on the physical box (e.g. ‘Brightening’) are packaging design, not an advertising claim, and are never evaluated as one.

State the pack logic plainly: 1 pack = 2 treatments = 1 month, and the routine is twice a month.

Scope · Routine and cadence framing

“Scar Repair Kit” is the product’s actual name. “Repair” and “Regenerating” in the product or ingredient name are not therapeutic claims.

Wording · Product name: ‘Scar Repair Kit’ is the product’s actual name. ‘Repair’ and ‘Regenerating’ in the product or ingredient name are not therapeutic claims.

Notes · Never flag either word as a claim. The international-regulator rule that treated them as therapeutic was explicitly withdrawn — CLM-46.

Older boxes saying DERM and current boxes saying THE DRM LAB are both real — you can call it “Derm” on camera. The wordmark THEDRMLAB, with the E styled to look like an F, is the real logo, on the vial too.

Wording · Logo: the wordmark reads ‘THEDRMLAB’ with the E styled so it resembles an F. This is the real logo, on the vial too. Never flag it as a typo.

Notes · Things that look wrong and aren’t. Do not “correct” either in post.

Do not violate Meta Advertising Standards on Personal Health and Appearance by implying negative self-perception.

Wording · Violate Meta Advertising Standards on Personal Health and Appearance by implying negative self-perception (though direct address of insecurity is permitted by the brand).

Scope · All Meta placements

Notes · The first explicit platform-policy rule in either document. The direct-address carve-out is CPY-38 / AUD-15. Second platform rule: visible needles-in-skin, blood or skin trauma “has led to prior Meta rejections” — VIS-15.

“Individual results vary” is an accepted alternative string to “Results may vary”.

Wording · Text: “Results may vary” or “Individual results vary” (on-screen text, small but legible).

Scope · The overlay on any before/after, personal result or results section — CLM-20

Allowed skin-outcome phrasing: “Helps improve the appearance of scar depth and texture” · “skin looks smoother, more even, less pitted over time” · “supports the skin’s own collagen rebuilding process”.

Notes · v1.6 ALWAYS PASS. Still carries a qualifier — CLM-19.

Allowed mechanism statement: creams sit on the epidermis, the barrier blocks them, atrophic scars form in the dermis, and the 0.5mm stamp creates micro-channels to help the serum reach the upper dermis.

Notes · v1.6 ALWAYS PASS — “Mechanism explanations (skin barrier, dermis depth, micro-channels) in ANY script, including a Frustrated Veteran script.” Never a failure. Segment fit is an editor note only — AUD-06.

Allowed ingredient facts: 0.3% PDRN triggers cellular repair and stimulates collagen synthesis and is a clinically studied compound used in Korean dermatology clinics · EGF supports renewal and tissue regeneration · Centella boosts collagen and accelerates recovery · Hyaluronic Acid hydrates and supports the barrier · Panthenol and Niacinamide soothe and strengthen.

Allowed facility facts: “Made in an FDA-registered facility” · “Class 100 sterile cleanroom” · “GMPC” · “ISO 22716” · “pharmaceutical-grade” or “pharmaceutical-grade water standard” when describing the facility, cleanroom, water standard or manufacturing process.

Scope · Facility and process only

Notes · v1.6 also allows the full phrase “Made in an FDA-registered, GMP-certified facility” in ALWAYS PASS, while saying the long form is not required — CLM-42. Pace the credentials — AFD-06.

“Dermatologist Recommended” — the only badge wording. Dr. Elena Dinkollari’s endorsement, quoted exactly as given.

Scope · Badge wording

Notes · v1.6 hard line 9 covers the wording only: “This applies ONLY to the dermatologist badge — every other badge, seal or end-card claim the brand uses, such as the 90-day guarantee badge, is unaffected.” Badge design and placement are free — VIS-33.

Allowed framing phrases: “clinic-inspired” · “the same category of ingredient used in clinics” · “professional-grade technology, made simple enough to use at home” — the required replacement for “professional strength”.

Wording · Use ‘Professional-grade technology, made simple enough to use at home’ instead of ‘professional strength’.

Allowed comfort language: “minimal discomfort”, “gentle”, and a real person’s own sensation in their own words.

Notes · Both review lines are honest: “the discomfort is minimal” and “a bit painful on thinner parts of the face”. Never “pain-free” — CLM-14.

“Helps prevent hyperpigmentation from making your scars appear darker” — preventive, tied to scars.

Wording · PREVENTIVE PIGMENT LANGUAGE: language about preventing scars from darkening is allowed when it is tied to scars — e.g. ‘helps prevent hyperpigmentation from making your scars appear darker’ (the formula contains ingredients that support this).

Notes · v1.6 ALWAYS PASS; B4 confirms the block is “on treatment claims only”. Claiming it treats pigment is not allowed — CLM-11.

“Proven” is permitted at the ingredient level, for PDRN only. “Clinically studied compound” is permitted for PDRN.

Proof figures approved as written: 90 days money-back guarantee · 0.5mm sterile single-use 24K gold microneedle stamp · 4.8★ from 1,465 verified reviews · FDA-registered facility, GMP / GMPC, ISO 22716, Class 100 sterile cleanroom · Dermatologist Recommended · ~2,100 new customers a month, 60% of them subscribing.

Notes · Carried from v1.5 — v1.6 contains no proof-figure list and no review rating at all (verified: no occurrence of “4.8” or “1,465”). Guarantee and review-figure rules: CLM-18, UGC-02.

Name salmon DNA honestly as the source, for credibility — “PDRN is derived from salmon DNA”. Never for shock value, never as a punchline.

Wording · Salmon DNA: Can be named honestly as the source of PDRN for scientific credibility, but never as a gimmick, shock value, or punchline.

Notes · v1.6 B4 names the objection directly: the “fish sperm ick factor”. Severity: caution.

“Made in an FDA-registered, GMP-certified facility” is permitted in full. The short form is also fine — the long form is not required.

Wording · State the product is made in an ‘FDA-registered facility’. The short form is fine on its own — the full ‘FDA-registered, GMP-certified facility’ is not required (brand 2026-09-21; the long form does not fit most designs).

The international-regulator rule treating “repair” and “regenerating” as therapeutic claims does not apply and was withdrawn.

Wording · Removed 2026-09-21 at the brand’s instruction: the international-regulator rule treating ‘repair’ and ‘regenerating’ as therapeutic claims was never agreed and does not apply — ‘Scar Repair Kit’ is the product’s name.

Notes · Recorded so it does not creep back in from an older rules doc.

Namable scar types: acne scarring, atrophic scarring, ice pick, boxcar and rolling.

Wording · Name specific scar types: acne scarring, atrophic scarring, ice pick, boxcar, and rolling scars.

Notes · v1.6 adds “acne scarring” and the full “atrophic scarring” to the v1.5 list. Naming them triggers the keloid disclaimer — CLM-25.

Never state the product’s actual price — no pack price, no box price, no plan price, no subscription price.

Wording · PROGRAM RULING — We are not allowed to mention the product’s actual prices in the ads we make for them.

Scope · All copy, on-screen text, end card, CTA

Notes · This supersedes v1.5’s blanket ban and v1.6’s permitted “‘$79 at home vs. a $3,000 clinic series’” example, because $79 is the product’s own price. Sole permitted expression of price is the per-day unit form — CPY-29. Contrast against a third party’s price is permitted — CPY-30.

The ad must not be purely a promo, discount or offer pitch — not built around what the buyer saves, what the offer is, or what the plan costs.

Wording · PROGRAM RULING — Our ads for them are not allowed to be PURELY presenting/focusing on promos, discounts and offers.

Scope · Whole creative, all formats

Notes · v1.6 puts “an ad built ENTIRELY around price” under NEVER ALLOW — Tone, and files it as a B4 guideline, not a hard line. The program ruling generalises the test from price to promos, discounts and offers. Selling the routine is the alternative — CPY-04.

Sell the routine, not a one-time fix. Creative has to sell the habit — something you do twice a month and keep doing, with a real count attached.

Wording · Subscription framing that sells the ROUTINE — something you do twice a month and keep doing, not a one-time fix.

Scope · Every concept

Notes · v1.6 files this as messaging priority 7 — DIRECTION, not a gate. A “one box and done” framing drags people to the smallest plan and undercuts the business.

Through November and December, do not lean on the 6-month offer at all.

Wording · Through November and December, don’t lean on the 6-month offer at all.

Scope · Nov–Dec creative only

Notes · Carried from v1.5. v1.6 never uses the word “offer” — it is silent on plans entirely. Inventory on the 3-month boxes is tight and each 6-month order eats two of them.

You don’t have to sell a specific plan — the page does that. Monthly is fine.

Wording · creators do not need to sell a specific plan (the page does that) and monthly is fine.

Per-day unit pricing is permitted: “start at $X a day”. This is the only permitted expression of the product’s price.

Wording · PROGRAM RULING — We can include stuff such as “start at X dollars a day” etc.

Scope · Per-day unit rate only — never a pack, box or plan figure

Notes · This form appears in neither v1.5 nor v1.6; it exists only in the program ruling. The figure itself is supplied nowhere. See AMB-12. Because a per-day rate is derived from the actual price it is an authorised carve-out, not a clean exception — see CF-08.

Pricing and value contrast against competitors is permitted — clinic series, laser series, professional microneedling, appointment and labour costs.

Wording · PROGRAM RULING — We can include pricing/value contrast against competitors. · Contrast price/value against clinic procedures by framing it as removing clinic overhead, appointments, and labor costs (e.g., ‘$79 at home vs. a $3,000 clinic series’).

Scope · Third-party prices only

Notes · The frame is v1.6’s; the exclusion of our own price is the program ruling. v1.6’s worked example is unusable as written because $79 is our actual price — keep the contrast, drop our side of it. “At home” must stay attached — CLM-23.

Never change a number to look better, or invent a result, a count or a testimonial.

Wording · Results, treatment counts or quotes that are not real — invented numbers, a count changed to look better, fabricated testimonials.

Scope · All copy, all footage

Notes · v1.6 hard line 4. See CPY-32 for the corollary: never suggest raising a count either.

No jargon used as authority.

Wording · Jargon-as-authority word salad (‘Clinically advanced regenerative technology’).

Scope · Brand copy and voiceover only — a real person’s own wording is never judged here, BRD-04

No hype in brand copy: “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING”, “flawless”, “erased”, round-number results, fast-timeline transformations.

Wording · Hype register (‘THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING’).

Notes · Brand copy only. Hype inside a real person’s own words is explicitly not a failure — UGC-10.

Never use “we’re all in this together” as the brand’s identity. It is Banish’s lane.

Wording · Adopting a brand-level ‘community’ or ‘movement’ identity as the overarching voice (‘we’re all in this together’ as positioning). This is a competitor’s (Banish’s) lane.

Notes · One-to-one solidarity inside a script is a different thing and is fine — BRD-08.

Never relentless upbeat cheerleading, cold dismissive bluntness, or “everything is a scam” cynicism.

Scope · Tone — brand copy only; “do not fail for tone” applies to a creator’s own words, BRD-04

Never dwell in misery without ever explaining the mechanism.

Scope · Narrative structure. Unrestricted emotional framing itself is permitted — CPY-36.

Never founder-narrative creative, and never the lab narrating as a character.

Wording · The lab itself narrating as a character. (A doctor or expert on camera in a lab coat is the brand’s authority-VSL format and is fine.)

Never a female script transplanted onto a male creator.

Wording · Use a male ad that is just a female script read by a man.

Notes · The fix for men is a man on camera with his own words — AUD-10.

Never build another version of “woman discovers PDRN”.

Wording · One more version of “woman discovers PDRN”

Scope · Every submission

Notes · A program-side creative-brief instruction, not a QA gate — v1.6 has no equivalent.

Never use humor that makes light of the scars or the audience’s insecurity. Humor has exactly one permitted target: the awkwardness of talking about it.

Wording · Use humor that makes light of the scars or the audience’s insecurity.

Notes · RE-TIERED from preference to prohibition on v1.6’s B2 Cannot list. “Yeah I know, a guy talking about his skin, groundbreaking stuff” passes — AUD-13.

Tone rules govern the brand’s copy and voiceover. A real person’s own words are never judged on tone.

Wording · NEVER ALLOW — Tone (in the BRAND’s own copy and voiceover only; a real person’s words are never judged here)

Notes · v1.6 repeats this four times and adds: “Do not fail for … a creator’s own wording.”

Clear the scam gate first, out loud. It is the gate every other objection passes through.

Wording · Pre-empt viewer skepticism out loud (‘I know this looks like every other before and after you’ve rolled your eyes at...’).

Scope · Every concept, opening line

Example · “I know this looks like every other before and after you’ve rolled your eyes at, so let me show you the actual room.”

Notes · v1.6 lists it as permitted and as a “looks like a violation but is OK” item. B4 rates the scam thread hard_block — the number one reputational risk.

Hedge the skin, never hedge the 90 days. The split-register line is the pattern.

Wording · 🤝 Hedged skin claims, unhedged 90 days

Scope · Every concept

Notes · The most underused proof in the category. A whole concept can be built on it.

Voice: unsentimental, exacting, weary but not cynical, plainspoken, quietly confident.

Wording · Personality: Unsentimental, Exacting, Weary-but-not-cynical, Plainspoken, Quietly confident.

The friend who did their homework — precise about the small things, honest about the slow things, flat about the guarantee.

Salmon DNA is science, not a punchline.

Wording · Salmon DNA is science, not a punchline. Name it for credibility … Never for shock value, never as a gag.

Scope · Ingredient framing — CLM-41

Own the open position: nobody in the field is exacting, precise and unsentimental. Being the one that doesn’t exaggerate is the whole strategy.

One-to-one solidarity inside a script (“you’re not alone in this”) is fine and performs.

Wording · NOT prohibited: in-script moments of one-to-one emotional solidarity or relatability between creator and viewer (‘you’re not alone in this’, shared-experience recognition) — a proven performer that stays fully allowed.

Notes · Not the banned brand-level “community”/“movement” identity — CPY-09.

Lead with the desire Saybel’s own words name: “I want to stop hating how I look in certain lighting.” Side light, the front camera, the bathroom mirror.

Notes · The desire is a normal relationship with their own face, not “flawless”.

When in doubt, this passes. QA on this account is moderate and defaults to pass.

Wording · WHEN IN DOUBT: PASS. (Changed 2026-09-21 at the brand’s instruction.) · Overall stance: moderate · Default when uncertain: PASS.

Notes · “A rule that is not on the HARD LINES list below is guidance for creators, not a gate. Flag only what clearly and specifically breaks a named rule.” Carried from v1.5 and made explicit and dated in v1.6.

Reviews used in ads must be real, and quoted as real.

Wording · Reviews in ads must be real ones, quoted as real.

Scope · Every review, every survey line, every comment

A real person describing their own sensation passes (“it did not hurt”, “I can barely feel the needles”, “you might feel a little sting”).

Scope · Comfort content in real-person voice

Notes · Do not put brand comfort language in their mouth — “it did not hurt” is a real person’s sentence, not the brand’s.

A real person’s own words about their own experience are their words and pass — including “miraculous”, “game changer”, “it didn’t hurt”, “nearly gone after 3 treatments”.

Wording · A real customer’s or creator’s own words about their experience are their words, not brand copy. · A creator’s or customer’s own words, including hype (‘miraculous’, ‘game changer’), comfort (‘it didn’t hurt’, ‘barely felt it’).

Notes · v1.6 widens this materially — see UGC-10 through UGC-14.

A customer’s own comparison to clinic treatment may be quoted as hers. Never lift “as good as a laser” into your own copy.

Wording · a customer’s own comparison. Quote it as hers; never lift “as good as a laser” into your own copy

A customer saying “best” is fine. Brand copy never does.

Wording · a customer saying “best” is fine. Brand copy never does

Notes · Pairs with CLM-13.

Saybel’s line is a named, verified testimonial the brand has cleared and may be used as the opener.

Notes · The rest of the sheet is anonymous reviews — quote them, but do not attach a name.

A creator saying their own doctor recommended it is their own words and passes.

Wording · A real customer or creator saying a doctor recommended it to them is their own words and passes.

Notes · Does not license dermatologist-developer or dermatologist-approved wording — CLM-06.

The public rating 4.8 from 1,465 verified reviews is the only review figure you state in an ad.

Wording · The public rating is 4.8 from 1,465 verified reviews, the number on the site; that is the only review figure you state in an ad

Notes · Carried from v1.5. v1.6 contains no review rating at all — verified: no occurrence of “4.8” or “1,465”.

Survey lines and ad-comment lines are real and usable as real quotes.

Wording · FROM THE POST-PURCHASE SURVEYS AND THE AD COMMENTS · ALSO REAL

Hype language inside a real person’s own words is not a failure.

Wording · Hype language, ‘miraculous’, ‘even tone’, ‘game changer’, benefit mentions outside acne scars (e.g. wrinkles), and comfort descriptions inside a genuine testimonial are NOT failures.

A real person saying “even tone” or reporting their own tone is not a failure.

Wording · ‘even tone’ … are NOT failures

Notes · Distinct from CLM-11: the brand may not claim to treat pigment, but a customer describing her own tone is her experience.

Benefit mentions outside acne scars — e.g. wrinkles — inside a real person’s own words are not a failure.

Wording · benefit mentions outside acne scars (e.g. wrinkles) … are NOT failures

Notes · v1.6 exempts real-person voice only. It does not say whether brand copy may claim wrinkles — AMB-16.

Comfort descriptions inside a genuine testimonial are not failures.

Wording · comfort descriptions inside a genuine testimonial are NOT failures

Notes · “It didn’t hurt” and “barely felt it” are both on-brand in a real person’s mouth. The brand’s own copy may still never say “pain-free” — CLM-14.

A real person reporting their own timeline is not a promise and passes.

Wording · NOTE: a real person REPORTING their own timeline (‘nearly gone after 3 treatments’) is not a promise and passes.

Notes · Pairs with CLM-02: the brand may never promise a timeline; a creator may report their own.

Never suggest raising a count to look more credible. Inventing a number is the violation, not the number itself.

Wording · Never fail a creative for a low count, and never suggest raising a count to look more credible — inventing a number is the violation, not the number itself.

Notes · The corollary of CPY-06, and the reason the earlier “6 to 10” framing was wrong. CLOSES the previous CF-03.

State the creator’s real treatment count — whatever that number is. There is no minimum and no proportionality test.

Wording · REAL-COUNT RULE (brand feedback 2026-09-21, supersedes the earlier proportionality test): there is NO minimum treatment count and no proportionality test. One person sees results at 3-4 treatments, another at 5-6, another with deeper scars at 12. If the person is real and the number stated is their real number, it passes at ANY count.

Scope · Every results narrative

Notes · Any real count passes at any result size. “3 treatments and it’s nearly gone” passes if it is that person’s real experience.

Name the 90-day timeframe rather than implying speed.

Wording · It names the 90-day timeframe instead of implying speed

Notes · “My Acne Scar Progress In 90 Days” names the timeframe and implies nothing faster. Naming the window is not promising a result by it — CLM-02.

A big result at a low count reads as fake to this audience. Say the real number whatever it is — and do not stage it out either.

Wording · A big result at a low count reads as fake to this audience. Say the real number, whatever it is.

Notes · Carried from v1.5, now constrained from both directions by CPY-15 and CPY-32: neither lower nor raise.

Accutane-finish-line creative is first-person only — never medical advice, never “stop your prescription”.

The honest count IS the answer to the true-cost objection. Say it is a routine: twice a month, a real count, and the whole decision sits inside the money-back window.

Wording · The honest count IS the answer.

Scope · True-cost objection

Notes · The objection: “one box is one month, real results take 6 to 10+ treatments”. Done silently at checkout it reads as bait-and-switch. The 6–10 figure here is context — CPY-31 — not a claim about the creator.

Name the near-quit moment out loud — “around treatment 6 I almost quit”.

Wording · The honest “I almost quit” beat isn’t a risk. It is the most believable thing you can say

Notes · A third of the review sheet is people two treatments in, and a few quit around treatment 3. v1.6: “this ruling is about this scenario, not a required script.”

Make precision the personality. Name the scar types and the depth: “0.5mm, not 0.75mm, and here’s exactly why that matters”.

Wording · Precision: Can be framed as a brand personality trait, e.g., ‘0.5mm, not 0.75mm, and here’s why that matters’.

Name any anomaly out loud — “I’ve got a little makeup on today, but you can still see the texture underneath.”

Product information you may use: the typical range is 6 to 10 treatments, and the full protocol for mild-to-moderate scarring is 6 treatments over three months.

Wording · Most people complete 6 to 10 treatments before evaluating their results, and the full protocol for mild-to-moderate scarring is 6 treatments.

Scope · Context for the routine and for objection-handling — not a required count, and never a reason to change your own number.

High counts are explicitly fine: 8, 10, 12+.

Wording · Be honest about difficulty, high treatment counts (8, 10, 12+), slow progress, and near-quitting moments for credibility.

Honest lower-count lines pass as-is: “2 treatments in and my skin already feels smoother”, “after my 3rd treatment my texture looks better”.

Wording · honest lower-count lines (‘2 treatments in and my skin already feels smoother’, ‘after my 3rd treatment my texture looks better’) pass as-is.

Respect the Q4 sequencing: test in October, lock by mid-November, never build in December.

Wording · Tested in October, locked by mid-November, never built in December

Notes · Carried from v1.5. v1.6 has no occurrence of “October” or “December”.

Bold hooks are allowed: “fix your acne scars” passes as a hook. “fix” is not “cure” or “erase”.

Wording · Bold hooks are allowed: “fix your acne scars” passes as a hook. “This cures your scars” fails anywhere it appears.

Hook latitude extends to static headlines. The hook’s job is to stop the scroll; the body of the ad carries the honest claim.

Wording · HOOK LATITUDE (brand rule 2026-09-21): hooks and static headlines may be bold and a little exaggerated — the hook’s job is to stop the scroll and the body of the ad carries the honest claim.

Notes · The hard line is a literal product claim: “this product cures / heals / erases / 100% fixes your scars” fails wherever it appears, hook included — CLM-01.

Open on a real customer’s verbatim sentence. It beats copy written to sound like a testimonial.

Pre-empt the skeptic in the first line. It clears the scam gate in one sentence.

Use the proven hooks as the bar, then write your own in the same family. Steal the structure, not the copy.

Unrestricted first-person emotional framing is permitted: “I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror”, “I’ve cried about this”.

Wording · Use unrestricted first-person emotional framing (‘I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror’, ‘I’ve cried about this’).

Notes · Distinct from CPY-11, which bars misery with no mechanism. Emotional framing is fine; unexplained misery is not.

Second-person address of the viewer’s insecurity is permitted: “still hiding your face in photos?”, “you’ve tried everything”.

Wording · Use second-person address of the viewer’s insecurity (‘still hiding your face in photos?’, ‘you’ve tried everything’).

Notes · Carve-out inside the Meta Personal Health & Appearance block — CLM-49.

November: the brand wants retention content alongside acquisition — what treatment 4 to 6 looks like, and why people who quit early never see the result.

December: September subscribers hit their second charge while still inside their 90 days. Nobody has made creative for that moment yet.

Keep going creative for existing customers is wanted: the real count, the near-quit moment and the learning curve as the spine.

Notes · The reviews describe exactly this moment, including the learning curve: head tilted back, press the ampule head so the serum flows.

No AI generation that reads as AI.

Wording · AI generation that reads as AI.

Scope · Every AI-assisted asset

Notes · A standard, not a tool ban. Applies to everything except the 3D needle animation, which v1.6 clears in three separate places — AI-07.

Never the Higgsfield “Special Offer” template — it repeatedly trips the NSFW filter.

Wording · Use the Higgsfield ‘Special Offer’ template, as it repeatedly trips the NSFW filter.

An AI dermatologist is not allowed — in any form, on camera or voiceover only.

Wording · ai dermatologist is not allowed

Scope · Every format. Synthetic derm avatars, presenters and expert personas are all out.

Notes · Broader than VIS-05, which only covers an expert on camera. Overlapping failure modes: “fake doctor” is already a live accusation in the comment threads (VIS-05), and an unlicensed synthetic persona risks CLM-49. Brand-owner ruling, flatly worded.

Never generate anything relating to results — a before/after, a progress visual, a depiction of the skin improving, or a count-linked outcome.

Wording · The hard line is do not generate anything relating to results.

Scope · All generated imagery and video, cloning included. Bounded permission is AI-11.

Notes · The decisive rule for AI cloning. A generated before/after fabricates a result regardless of whose face it uses — it trips VIS-08 (no filter/retouching, absolute), AI-03 (never fabricate a result), CPY-06 (never invent a result), and v1.6 hard line 4 (“results… that are not real”). CLOSES the previous CF-09.

AI may not be used to fabricate anything presented as real — a number, a count, a result, a quote, a testimonial, a before/after.

Wording · Fabrication is the one thing that never gets latitude

Scope · Every AI-assisted asset

Notes · STRONGLY IMPLIED. The fabrication prohibition is explicit and is v1.6 hard line 4; applying it to AI output is a direct reading of it, not a separately stated rule.

Never an AI-rendered product shot showing 6 to 12 vials. That is the named violation band.

Wording · AI-RENDERED product shots with 6-12 vials

Scope · AI renders only

Notes · v1.6 names the failing range explicitly, which v1.5 did not.

An AI render of the product may show 2 to 3 vials, max.

Wording · AI-RENDERED product shots with 6-12 vials; 2-3 vials maximum in a render, sharp and legible.

Notes · The guidance applies only to AI-rendered shots. A photograph of the real 12-treatment kit showing 12 vials is accurate and passes — PRD-08.

AI renders of the product must be sharp and legible.

Notes · Still no threshold for “sharp and legible” — AMB-03.

3D / illustrative needle animation is always fine, and is how the brand explains the product. v1.6 clears this in three separate places, unconditionally.

Wording · 3D or illustrative animation of needles entering skin is NOT a failure at all — it is how the brand explains the product. · 3D or illustrative needle animation is always fine.

Notes · Needs no needle or blood blur, being animation rather than real footage — the pair with VIS-15. This CLOSES the previous AMB-02: the two rules do not conflict, animation is carved out of AI-01.

Cloning a real creator from the Drive to fill missing b-roll or scene clips is permitted — provided nothing generated relates to results.

Wording · what we usually did and performed pretty good, was to take our creators on drive and clone them if there are missing any specific clips that you want to include on the video

Scope · Clones of real, consenting creators only — never a synthetic person built from scratch, AI-12

Notes · The brand names the use case: a creator has all her application clips and is missing the before/after — that specific gap is now barred by AI-10. Scene and b-roll gaps remain open. Two standing limits regardless: the clone must not read as AI (AI-01), and a likeness needs a consent basis that no source document establishes — see Missing Information and NTQ-01.

The brand does not want AI UGC personas created from scratch. Clone real creators instead.

Wording · ai ugc we don’t want to create them from scratch

Scope · Synthetic personas built with no real person behind them

Notes · Recorded at its literal strength — “don’t want to” is a preference, not a prohibition, and is tiered Preferred rather than Prohibited for that reason. Never appeared in v1.5, v1.6 or the program ruling; brand-owner instruction.

Never show anyone who appears to be a minor.

Scope · Every frame

Notes · v1.6 hard line 10 and a B4 reputation killer.

Never show someone as pathetic or hopeless.

No blurred or pixelated faces.

Notes · The documents do not distinguish anonymisation from low-quality generation — AMB-01.

Cast the people the category ignores. Overwhelmingly single-skin-tone casting should be flagged.

Wording · Overwhelmingly single-skin-tone casting should be flagged.

Scope · Casting — B4 severity: caution, not a gate

Cast darker skin tones — a key market segment and the ones who can’t risk lasers.

Wording · Darker skin tones are underrepresented and a key market segment (Frustrated Veterans who cannot risk lasers).

Any doctor or expert on camera has to be real. A doctor in a lab coat is the brand’s authority-VSL format and is fine.

Wording · Feature a doctor or expert in a lab coat. This is the brand’s authority-VSL format and is not ‘the lab narrating to the viewer’.

Notes · “Fake doctor” is a live accusation in the comment threads. This covers an expert on camera only — a synthetic dermatologist is barred outright by AI-09.

Close-up, harsh-lit, emotionally direct visuals are the account’s established severity level and are not a violation.

Wording · Use close-up, harsh-lit, emotionally direct visuals and copy, as this is the established severity level for the account. · Close-up macro shots of real pitted and textured scarring, including under harsh or side lighting.

Show the product accurately at the correct bundle tier. BUY 1 is one package, two treatments.

Wording · Mandatory: Product shown accurately at the correct bundle tier (e.g., BUY 1 is one package/two treatments).

Notes · v1.6 B3 lists this as Mandatory. Applies to AI renders too — AI-06.

The gold stamp must look realistic, not implied to be sharper or more clinical.

Wording · Mandatory: The gold stamp must look realistic, not implied to be sharper or more clinical.

Notes · v1.6 confirms Mandatory but still supplies no threshold — AMB-03. Stakes rose when it became a gate.

A photograph of the real 12-treatment kit showing 12 vials is accurate and passes.

Wording · A photograph of the real 12-treatment kit showing 12 vials is accurate and passes. The 2-3 vial guidance applies only to AI-rendered product shots.

No filters or retouching on a before/after. This is absolute.

Wording · Use any filter or retouching on a before/after. This is absolute.

Notes · “There was a video that looked very airbrushed you used. Please be sincere with your clients.” — a paying customer, still watching for the filter.

A same-room, unfiltered before/after where she is wearing makeup in the after passes, provided nothing is fabricated and the overlay is present. Better still, have her name it.

Wording · PASS — A genuine same-room, unfiltered before/after 90 days apart, but she’s wearing makeup in the after because she filmed on a day she was going out.

Notes · v1.6 records this as a correction from an earlier FAIL (brand 2026-09-22): “Nothing is fabricated, filtered or retouched, and the required overlay logic is unchanged — so it passes.”

Aim for the same light, angle, room and clothing — this is what creators are told. Differences are NOT a failure.

Wording · BEFORE/AFTER GUIDELINE (guideline, not a gate) — Aim for the same light, angle, room and clothing. This is what creators are told. · Differences between the two shots are NOT a failure. Real people filming on a phone cannot match conditions, and a too-perfect match reads as photoshopped and costs trust.

Notes · RE-TIERED from Required to Preferred. v1.6 labels the section “(guideline, not a gate)” and says three times that differences are not a failure. Direction inverted: a too-perfect match now reads as photoshopped. If the light is clearly different, naming it beats any rule — CLM-29, CPY-21.

A split screen pairing a talking head with a close-up of the same person’s skin is two moments, not a before/after — do not judge it as one. Different lighting and setting between the panels is expected.

Wording · Show a split screen pairing a talking head with a close-up of the same person’s skin. This is TWO MOMENTS, not a before/after, and must not be judged as one — different lighting and setting between the panels is expected.

Notes · RE-TIERED from Prohibited to Preferred. This guards against a false positive; it is not a ban on the format. v1.6 lists it twice as explicitly fine.

Same room, same light, no filter. That pairing is what clears the scam gate.

Wording · Same room and same light where you can, no filter ever

Harsh light on real texture is fine. Slick ring-lit afters against dim befores are what fuel the scam thread.

Wording · slick ring-lit afters against dim befores

Notes · Persuasive risk, not a QA gate — v1.6 says “Do not fail for … lighting”.

Healed, flat, pitted or discoloured scarring is NOT active and is the intended use.

Wording · Healed, flat, pitted or discoloured scarring is NOT active and is the intended use.

Scope · What may appear on camera

Notes · NEW in v1.6 and it matters: showing discoloured scarring is fine. Only claiming to treat pigment is prohibited — CLM-11. Do not read CLM-11 as barring the visual.

Do not film the stamp on active breakouts, or on inflamed, open or broken skin.

Wording · Show anyone treating active acne, open sores, or inflamed skin on camera. This is a genuine safety risk and a HARD LINE.

Scope · Every application shot

Notes · v1.6 DETECTION INSTRUCTION: “in EVERY shot where the stamp or device touches skin, inspect the skin itself before judging anything else. Look for raised or red papules, whiteheads, pustules, visibly angry or broken patches, and scabbing — anywhere the device passes, not only where the camera focuses. … Treat any visible active lesion under the device as a fail and name the timestamp.”

Blur the needle area and any blood in real footage. Unblurred needles entering skin, visible blood or visible skin trauma is an automatic fail.

Wording · Unblurred needles entering skin, visible blood, or visible skin trauma in real footage. Real procedure footage (microneedling pen, injections) is allowed when the needle area and any blood are blurred.

Notes · Second platform consequence: v1.6 records this as something that “has led to prior Meta rejections”. 3D animation needs no blur — AI-07.

Real procedure footage — microneedling pen, injections — is allowed when the needle area and any blood are blurred.

Wording · Real procedure footage (microneedling pen, injections) is allowed when the needle area and any blood are blurred.

Laser or treatment b-roll with no needles and no blood is fine.

Wording · Laser or treatment b-roll with no needles and no blood is fine.

Three hooks per concept, and each one is a genuinely different ad.

Wording · Three hooks per concept. Not one, not six: three, and each one built as its own ad.

Scope · Every concept

Notes · Different visual · different environment or setting · a different person where possible · a different text overlay and different music · its own thumbnail. Meta groups near-identical creatives together and treats them as one. Music and thumbnail clauses do not apply to native — AFD-10, AFD-11.

Same footage with a new text overlay is not a variation. Three ads sharing footage, room, face and music are one ad to the algorithm and cannibalise each other.

Wording · Same footage, new text overlay. The one thing everyone does, and it is useless here.

Notes · Why, per the brand owner: Meta groups ads by Entity ID, separately from the Creative ID your upload gets. Two uploads get different Creative IDs, but if the visual composition is too similar they share an Entity ID — and ads sharing one split delivery data instead of each reaching new people. “You think you uploaded 3 ads but actually Meta might only see 1.” Text changes barely move this; changing the visual is way more powerful. Static equivalent: VIS-36, VIS-37. Native: AFD-11.
Attribution discrepancy: v1.5 attributes this to Meta’s Andromeda delivery system; the brand owner attributes it to Entity ID. Two different mechanisms from two sources. Both recorded; neither asserted as correct — see NTQ-02.

Keep all text — overlays, captions, logo, badge, CTA — out of the top 14% and the bottom 20% of a 9:16 frame.

Wording · Technical QA checks the top 14% and the bottom 20% of the frame. Keep every text overlay, caption, logo, badge and CTA out of those two bands.

Scope · 9:16 VIDEO ONLY — not statics, not native

Notes · Two ads in the first test run failed on safe zones alone, so this check precedes brand QA entirely. The SAFE ZONE META template is the guide — VIS-18. Brand-owner ruling: safe zones are irrelevant to native, which runs on Facebook primary text — AFD-10.

One thumbnail per hook. The only exception is when the frame at 0:00 already has the text overlay on it and the visual is captivating.

Wording · Every hook needs its own thumbnail. The only exception: the very first frame at 0:00 already works as one

Scope · 9:16 VIDEO ONLY — not statics, not native

Notes · A black frame, a random frame or a mid-motion blur does not count as the exception — upload a custom thumbnail.

If a concept can only be one person, change everything else.

Wording · A different person where possible. If it can only be you, change everything else.

Use the SAFE ZONE META overlay template. Drop it on the timeline and keep your text inside it.

No stock-photo-feeling environments and no sterile white clinic backdrops.

Wording · Prohibited: Stock-photo-feeling environments or sterile white clinic backdrops.

Notes · CONFLICT CF-04. v1.6 lists this as Prohibited in B3, then lists “stock-feeling backdrops” under “NOT A FAILURE (do not flag)” in the interpretation guide. Contradicted inside one document.

Real humans, phone-camera one-takes over polished production. A real room, a real face, harsh light on real texture.

Wording · Required Format Defaults: Real humans, phone-camera one-takes over polished production.

Fonts: Inter and Kepler are the defaults; anything that fits the format is fine.

Music is format-conditional. No music for yapper / organic talking-head · trending audio for the testimonial-timeline style · slow, emotional music for b-roll transformation.

Wording · Music is FORMAT-CONDITIONAL, not a blanket default … Do not fail an ad for its music choice unless it clearly mismatches the format.

Notes · “Never fail on music alone.” The word “clearly” is doing unstated work — AMB-13.

Show the actual room. Pre-empt the skeptic, then prove it.

Badge design and placement are free and are never a failure.

Wording · Badge design and placement are free and are never a failure.

Scope · Badge artwork — wording is restricted by CLM-35 / VIS-27; design and placement are not.

Never submit a static variation that swaps only the review text or headline. That is not a variation and it will not reach new people.

Wording · if you’re doing a variation on a concept, change the background, the layout, or the whole visual setup, not just the review quote or headline

Scope · Statics

Notes · The static twin of VIS-20. “What actually creates a new Entity ID is changing the visual structure.” Text-only swaps land in the same Entity ID and cannibalise each other.

A static variation must change the visual structure: different background, layout, composition, colour treatment, product position, props or environment, or a different person.

Wording · What actually creates a new Entity ID is changing the visual structure: different background, different layout, different people, different structure, different color treatment, different composition, different props or environment. · Practical takeaway for static submissions: if you’re doing a variation on a concept, change the background, the layout, or the whole visual setup, not just the review quote or headline.

Scope · Any static submitted as a variation of another static

Notes · Directly answers the failure the brand owner spotted: three statics from one editor, same concept, same product shot, same background, only the review text and headline swapped. Holding the copy and moving the composition is the whole point — AFD-11 applies the same principle to native.

Never a dermatologist badge worded as anything other than “Dermatologist Recommended” — never Approved, Developed or Formulated.

Wording · A DERMATOLOGIST badge worded as anything other than ‘Dermatologist Recommended’ … This applies ONLY to the dermatologist badge — every other badge, seal or end-card claim the brand uses, such as the 90-day guarantee badge, is unaffected.

Scope · Badge wording only

Notes · v1.6 hard line 9. Design and placement are free — VIS-33. If you downloaded assets before 25-09-2026, delete any “DERMATOLOGIST APPROVED” file: nine ads used it.

Never screenshot any landing page other than the acne-scars page (thedrmlab.com/products/pdrn-infusion-system).

Wording · A screenshot of the wrong landing page (must be the acne-scars page). HARD LINE, confirmed by the brand 2026-09-21 on a real creative.

Notes · The older Derm Micro-Infusion page is a discoloration and redness page; a screenshot of it is an automatic fail — and its subject matter is itself a prohibited claim, CLM-11.

Never name Banish, Qure or Pluune, in any context, positive or negative.

Wording · Direct Competitors (Banish, Qure, Pluune): Hard block on naming these brands in any context, positive or negative.

Notes · v1.6 hard line 10. Note the tension with B4’s “Naming a direct competitor negatively at scale” — CF-05.

Never show Banish, Qure, Pluune, or any brand competing specifically in at-home acne scar treatment.

Wording · Blocked names: Banish, Qure, Pluune, and any other brand competing specifically in at-home acne scar treatment. These names cannot appear in any context.

If your real story involves a blocked brand, replace it with a generic term.

Wording · If a creator has a story about a direct competitor, they must use a generic category term like ‘another at-home microneedling system’ or ‘a different scar stamp I bought online’.

Never use evaluative or disparaging language about any named brand — “X is a waste of money”.

Wording · Use evaluative or disparaging language about any named brand (‘X is a waste of money’).

Scope · Any named brand — v1.6 broadens this beyond device brands to all of them. NEW in v1.6.

Dr. Pen, SkinPen, Dermapen, Bio-Oil and Mederma can only appear as your own “I tried it, it didn’t work for me”. No evaluative language, no superiority claims.

Wording · Legacy/Adjacent Brands (Bio-Oil, Mederma, Dr. Pen, SkinPen, Dermapen): Can be named only in a neutral-to-negative first-person ‘I tried it, it didn’t work for me’ context. No evaluative language (‘it’s a scam’) or superiority claims.

Retinol and tretinoin may be distinguished on mechanism (“not built to rebuild collagen at dermis depth”) but never argued against and never implied to be useless.

Wording · Retinol/Tretinoin: May be distinguished on mechanism (‘not built to rebuild collagen at dermis depth’) but never argued against as treatments or implied to be useless.

Notes · “Implied to be useless” is new in v1.6 and broader than v1.5’s “never argued against”. B4 severity: hard_block — “Messaging that implies abandoning a prescription treatment is dangerous.” The stop-a-prescription half is CMP-48.

Clinic procedures — CO2 laser, Fraxel, TCA cross, subcision, professional microneedling — are first-person history only, never “better than”.

Wording · Medical Procedures (CO2 laser, Fraxel, TCA cross, subcision, professional microneedling): Can be named in first-person personal history … Direct comparative superiority is prohibited.

No “it’s a scam” claim, and no superiority claims, against any named brand or procedure.

Wording · No evaluative language (‘it’s a scam’) or superiority claims.

Compare against the category, never against a named brand.

Wording · The comparison is always against the category, never against a named brand.

The value frame is that this removes the clinic overhead — not that it beats the clinic.

Wording · The value frame is that this removes the clinic overhead, not that it beats the clinic.

Notes · Pairs with CLM-28 and CPY-30.

Arguing against the mechanism of creams, gels and scar gels is core positioning and fully permitted.

Wording · Arguing against the mechanism of creams, gels, and scar gels is core positioning and fully permitted.

The paradox angle lives in the clinic-procedure lane.

Offer-led statics do not run in this program. An ad built around a discount does not launch, regardless of how brand QA treats it.

Wording · Offer-driven statics — Well covered, and not for you (program rule) · offer-led ads don’t run in this program at all

Notes · v1.6 has no occurrence of the word “offer”. This is a program-side block carried from v1.5 and unaffected by the v1.6 discount-CTA PASS.

Evergreen only. The ad may not pivot on what the buyer saves, what the offer is, or what the plan costs.

Wording · PROGRAM RULING — not allowed to be PURELY presenting/focusing on promos, discounts and offers · no price, no offers, evergreen only

Notes · REWRITTEN. The previous version read “No price, no plan pricing, no discount, no offer anywhere in the ad”, which v1.6 contradicted. The evergreen principle stands; the blanket ban on price and discount does not. See CPY-01 and CPY-02.

A discount or offer end card is not itself a program fail — but it may not make the ad offer-led, and it may not state the actual price.

Wording · CTAs and end cards may state a discount or saving (‘shop now & save up to 58% off’). A CTA is how the product is sold and is never a failure on its own. (v1.6) · Our ads for them are not allowed to be PURELY presenting/focusing on promos, discounts and offers (program ruling)

Notes · RESOLVED as to the price ban — CPY-01. What remains unstated is whether a discount CTA is desirable in this program or merely not fatal — AMB-14. v1.6 passes the “shop now & save up to 58% off” end card explicitly (brand feedback 2026-09-21).

For native primary text ads, submit completely different images.

Wording · just submit completely different images

Scope · Every native submission, and every native variation

Notes · The operational rule for native. Same Entity ID logic as VIS-36 and VIS-20, applied to the native image. Held constant across a native set: the Facebook primary text. Moved per submission: the image, and it must be completely different — not a text swap.

Behind-the-scenes facility / how it’s made: some exists, and it is usually credential-stacked. Pace the credentials and say what each one controls for.

Wording · PASS — Behind-the-scenes facility ad … Every claim is individually true and none is on the hard-line list, so it passes (brand 2026-09-22, correcting the earlier FAIL).

Notes · v1.6 records this as a correction from an earlier FAIL and reclassifies the cumulative impression as “a GUIDELINE, not a gate”. Only an explicit “FDA approved” fails it — CLM-05. Facility wording — CLM-34, CLM-42.

UGC and real-human testimonial video — the dominant winning format, and the fastest lane.

Talking head with mechanism (“the friend who did their homework”) — well covered.

Native ad format is allowed. It runs on Facebook primary text, so the video-specific rules do not apply: no safe zones, no thumbnail, no music.

Wording · native ad format is allowed · Native format is text only so safe zones are irrelevant.

Scope · Native placements

Notes · Brand-owner ruling. Exempts VIS-16 (safe zones), VIS-17 (thumbnail) and VIS-25 (music). It does not exempt the ad from any claim, copy or evidence rule — the Facebook primary text is ordinary ad copy, so CPY-01, CPY-02, CPY-29, CPY-30, CLM-18, CLM-19 and the VIS-08 / CLM-20 overlay rules all still govern it. Recorded as a format exemption, not a rules exemption.

Early Discoverers and parents of sons are no longer target segments.

Wording · Early Discoverers and parents of sons are no longer target segments. · a creative aimed at a dropped segment gets an editor note, never a failure

Scope · Concept portfolio and audience research

Notes · NEW in v1.6 and absent from this rulebook’s previous revision, because v1.5 never mentioned those segments at all.

Frustrated Veterans are the main audience — people who already did lasers, subcision or professional microneedling and got little or nothing. Most concepts.

Wording · Frustrated Veterans are now the program’s MAIN audience (people who already did lasers, subcision or professional microneedling and got little or nothing) and get the paradox angle.

Notes · v1.6 restates this as a segment-focus change dated 2026-09-30.

Around 30 to 35% of concepts go to Aware Skeptics — researched the clinic route and never booked it.

Wording · Aware Skeptics get roughly 30-35% of concepts and may use the surface-vs-dermis mechanism lightly.

Men fit inside both remaining segments. Bring net-new concepts for those people before you make another version of “woman discovers PDRN”.

Wording · Men fit inside both remaining segments. … Bring net-new concepts for those people before you make another version of “woman discovers PDRN”.

Notes · Men are 40% of the audience and close to 0% of the creative. “He is not a separate segment.”

Write to one person per ad, and write to the exhaustion rather than the scarring.

Wording · The defining trait isn’t the scarring, it’s the exhaustion. Write to that, and write to one person per ad.

Which segment a creative targets is a brief-level choice, not a QA failure. A creative aimed at a dropped segment gets an editor note.

Wording · Which segment a creative targets is a brief-level choice, not a QA gate: a creative aimed at a dropped segment gets an editor note, never a failure.

Reference mix: 60% women / 40% men; ages 35–45 first, 25–34 second, 50+ third. Segments: Frustrated Veteran 28–45 · Aware Skeptic 25–38.

Scope · Planning and casting

Surface vs the dermis is a light touch for Aware Skeptics only — the proof and the guarantee do the heavy lifting.

Wording · Surface-vs-dermis education is a light touch for Aware Skeptics only.

Notes · Segment fit, not compliance. “Do NOT fail the creative for it.”

Frustrated Veteran scripts should take the paradox angle: “the aggressive stuff was supposed to work best and didn’t, nobody knows why, every skin responds differently”.

Wording · Mechanism — the PARADOX angle for Frustrated Veterans, the main audience. … A mismatch is an EDITOR NOTE, never a failure (brand 2026-09-22).

Notes · RE-TIERED from Conditional to Preferred. Surface-vs-dermis in a Veteran script PASSES — v1.6 ALWAYS PASS: “Mechanism explanations … in ANY script, including a Frustrated Veteran script.” Raise the mismatch as an editor note recommending the swap. This CLOSES the previous CF-02.

Choosing the wrong mechanism will not fail QA — it will lose the viewer.

Wording · Getting this wrong won’t fail QA. It will lose the viewer.

Notes · Confirmed by v1.6 in five places, each time paired with “do not fail the creative for it”.

Cast darker skin tones in the paradox angle — the laser risk is their real reason.

A woman’s script read by a man does not pass.

Wording · Use a male ad that is just a female script read by a man.

Mocking the insecurity does not pass. “Yeah I’ve got some craters, no big deal” would fail.

A man’s angle may include a closer shave, because the razor stops catching in the ice pick scars.

The fix for men is creative, not copy: a man on camera, understated, matter-of-fact, talking about his own skin the way he’d tell one friend.

Wording · Feature male creators in an understated, private, matter-of-fact register (‘I don’t really talk about this, but...’).

Notes · v1.6 B4: framing male skin insecurity is a caution, “Requires a quiet, private, understated, matter-of-fact register. Getting it wrong reads as mocking or inauthentic.”

The male register is quiet, private, understated, matter-of-fact: “I don’t really talk about this, but…”

The joke may target the awkwardness of talking, not the scars: “Yeah I know, a guy talking about his skin, groundbreaking stuff” passes.

Wording · PASS — Male creator, understated and matter-of-fact … “Yeah I’ve got some craters, no big deal” would fail.

Notes · “The joke targets the social taboo of the conversation happening at all, not the scars or the insecurity.”

Direct address of the insecurity is allowed: “still hiding your face in photos?” “If you’re still hiding your face in photos, you’re not alone in this. I was too.”

Wording · Second-person address of the viewer’s insecurity (‘still hiding your face in photos?’, ‘you’ve tried everything’).

Notes · Carve-out inside the Meta Personal Health & Appearance block — CLM-49.

The male desire: handle this without making it a whole thing. Private, no drama, no “journey”.

Open on a trigger scene: the photo they didn’t expect in side lighting · the Accutane finish line · the procedure that did nothing · the quote they couldn’t afford · the drugstore dead end · a deadline · a man sees himself in an ad.

Write to one of the six desires under the purchase: stop hating how I look in certain lighting · someone be straight with me for once · feel smart for choosing this, not desperate · something that reaches the actual problem · safe for my skin · handle this without making it a whole thing.

What every segment shares: daily self-consciousness, avoiding the front camera, certain lighting, years of failed solutions. Cold budget goes to the two segments who have already spent money on this problem and are done waiting for cheap things to work.