Claims & Evidence Policy

A claim is easy to write

Evidence is harder to earn

Industrial websites frequently use impressive numbers.

30% Energy Savings.

99% Uptime.

Zero Downtime.

Hundreds of Installations.

Thousands of Customers.

24/7 Support.

Guaranteed Response.

Authorised Partner.

Certified Solution.

Each statement may look convincing.

But the important question is:

What evidence supports it?

Reddy Compressors should not build authority by accumulating claims that cannot be substantiated.

The stronger standard is:

Claim → source → scope → review → approval → publication

• Our publication rule
• No evidence → no numerical claim
• No approval → no customer name or quote
• No baseline → no savings percentage

This rule is explicitly defined in the current Reddy Compressors evidence architecture.

It applies across:

• Case Studies
• Customer Testimonials
• Energy Projects
• Maintenance Results
• Rental Projects
• Drilling Performance
• Fleet Claims
• Product Claims
• Service Capabilities
• Certifications
• Brand Relationships
• The purpose is not to make Reddy Compressors less ambitious
• It is to make every published statement more credible

Why claim governance matters

Industrial customers may use website information to make decisions involving:

• • capital investment
• • production continuity
• • equipment selection
• • safety
• • energy cost
• • maintenance strategy
• • procurement
• A weakly supported claim can therefore create more than a marketing problem
• It can influence an engineering or commercial decision

For that reason, the standard should be:

Specific claims require specific evidence

The evidence status system

Every significant project or customer-result claim should carry an internal evidence status.

E0 — concept / draft

Illustrative material only.

Not a customer result.

Not publishable as a completed Reddy Compressors project.

This status may be used while a case-study structure is being prepared but supporting records have not yet been established.

E1 — project existence verified

Evidence confirms that the customer engagement or project genuinely existed.

Possible evidence can include:

• • quotation
• • purchase order
• • service report
• • rental agreement
• • invoice
• • job card

This establishes:

The work existed.

It does not establish:

• The claimed performance result occurred
• That distinction is important
• A purchase order can prove that equipment was hired or supplied
• It does not prove that energy consumption fell by 20%

E2 — technical intervention verified

This stage establishes what was actually done.

Evidence may confirm:

• • equipment involved
• • configuration
• • work performed
• • dates
• • service or project intervention

For example:

• Existing machine identified
• Dryer installed
• Pipework modified
• Compressor overhauled
• Temporary compressor deployed

But this still does not automatically prove:

energy savings, uptime improvement, productivity gain or ROI.

E3 — outcome measured

This is where performance claims begin to gain measurable evidence.

Before/after information may include:

• kW
• kWh
• Airflow
• Pressure
• Operating Hours
• Downtime
• Fuel Consumption
• Production Data
• Maintenance Frequency
• The measurement method should be defensible
• The comparison period should be meaningful

And operating conditions should be sufficiently understood to avoid attributing unrelated changes to the compressor intervention.

E4 — customer verified

The customer has confirmed the facts or supplied supporting information.

This can include confirmation of:

• • equipment
• • work performed
• • operating result
• • downtime record
• • energy data
• • feedback
• Customer verification strengthens the evidence chain

It still does not automatically provide permission to publish the customer's identity.

E5 — publication approved

This is the final public-evidence state.

Where applicable, explicit approval has been obtained for publication of:

• • customer identity
• • company name
• • logo
• • quotation
• • photographs
• • performance figures

Only at this stage should sensitive customer-specific evidence be used publicly according to its approved scope.

Not every claim requires the same type of evidence

Type a — directly measured

Example:

Average header pressure changed from X bar to Y bar during defined measurement periods.

This is strong evidence when supported by:

• • pressure logging
• • measurement records
• • defined dates
• The claim should still state its measurement context

Type b — calculated from measured data

Example:

• Specific power changed from X to Y kW/(m³/min)
• The underlying values may be measured
• But the final result is calculated
• Therefore the calculation method should be visible or traceable

Type c — customer-reported

Example:

Customer maintenance records showed X hours of compressor-related downtime.

If Reddy Compressors did not independently measure the information, it should be described appropriately as customer-reported where that distinction matters.

Customer data is evidence.

But the evidence source should remain clear.

Type d — engineering estimate

Example:

Annual energy savings estimated using:

• Measured kW Reduction × Assumed Annual Operating Hours
• That may be useful engineering information
• But it remains an estimate

The website should not convert:

Estimated annual saving

into:

Measured annual saving

The assumptions should remain visible.

The before / after standard

Performance cases should follow a controlled comparison.

Baseline

When was the initial condition measured?

How was it measured?

Did production, pressure, operating hours or other important variables change?

Has it been approved?

This protects against one of the most common weaknesses in industrial case studies:

comparing two numbers without proving that they are comparable.

Energy-savings claims

Energy claims require particular discipline.

Suppose plant electricity consumption before a project was:

100,000 kWh/month

and afterwards:

• 90,000 kWh/month
• That does not automatically prove 10% compressor-system savings
• Perhaps production declined
• Perhaps operating hours changed
• Perhaps equipment was shut down
• Perhaps system pressure changed

A credible energy result may need to consider:

• • production level
• • operating hours
• • compressor loading
• • system pressure
• • airflow
• • baseline period
• • post period
• Where normalisation is required, it should be explained

Pressure-optimisation claims

A claim such as:

• “System pressure reduced from 8 bar to 7 bar.”
• is meaningful only when the measurement context is understood

Questions include:

• measured where?
• under what production conditions?
• over what period?
• did point-of-use pressure remain adequate?

The objective is not merely to produce a lower number.

It is to maintain the required operating condition with less unnecessary pressure.

Downtime claims

If Reddy Compressors publishes:

“Downtime reduced by 40%.”

the evidence must define:

• • baseline downtime
• • post-intervention downtime
• • measurement periods
• • what qualifies as compressor-related downtime
• • whether planned shutdowns were excluded
• • data source
• Without that context, the percentage can be misleading

Roi & payback claims

Return-on-investment claims require equally careful treatment.

Simple payback can be represented conceptually as:

• Net Project Investment
• ÷
• Verified Annual Financial Benefit

Potential benefits may include documented:

• • energy reduction
• • maintenance reduction
• • rental avoidance
• • other justified operating savings

But production-loss avoidance should not simply be invented to make the project look financially attractive.

Drilling productivity claims

Portable and drilling applications need special caution.

Suppose penetration rate improves after a compressor change.

The compressor may have contributed.

But drilling performance can also be affected by:

• • geology
• • hammer
• • bit condition
• • hole diameter
• • depth
• • operator
• • drilling rig condition

A statement such as:

“This compressor increased drilling productivity 25%.”

therefore requires evidence capable of separating or acknowledging those variables.

Project-schedule claims

A statement such as:

• “Completed the project two weeks early.”
• should not automatically be attributed to the compressor
• Project schedules can be affected by many factors

To link acceleration to a compressed-air intervention, evidence should establish a credible relationship between:

• Baseline Programme
• → Compressor Intervention
• → Productivity Change
• → Actual Completion

Air-quality claims

Air-quality case studies require particularly strong evidence.

Installing:

Oil-Free Compressor + Dryer + Filters

does not automatically prove:

Food Compliance

or:

Pharmaceutical Compliance

or:

Zero Contamination.

A defensible claim may require relevant evidence such as:

• • dew-point measurement
• • particle testing
• • oil-content testing
• • laboratory report
• • customer quality records
• • defined sampling point
• • defined measurement method
• The process specification should control the claim

Case-study claim ledger

Every numerical public claim should have an internal evidence record.

The source master proposes a claim ledger containing items such as:

• Claim ID
• Exact Public Wording
• Linked Project
• Metric
• Baseline + Period
• Post Value + Period
• Formula
• Evidence Source
• Evidence Owner
• Customer Confirmation
• Publication Approval
• Review Date
• E0–E5 Status
• It means a published number can be traced backwards

The project evidence library

For every project intended for public use, the internal evidence folder may contain, where available:

• • quotation
• • purchase order
• • invoice
• • rental agreement
• • service report
• • equipment nameplate
• • before photographs
• • after photographs
• • commissioning record
• • controller screenshots
• • meter or logger exports
• • flow data
• • energy data
• • downtime records
• • maintenance history
• • customer approval
• • final approved case study

This is how project evidence becomes reusable corporate knowledge rather than disappearing inside emails and files.

Customer testimonials

Customer voices must be real

Testimonials can be powerful.

They are also easy to fabricate.

Before publishing a customer quotation, the evidence record should retain, where applicable:

• • customer identity or approved anonymous description
• • person's name and role where permission exists
• • original wording
• • source message, letter, email, recording or approved transcript
• • date
• • related project
• • publication permission

Customer voices should not be invented and that legacy draft quotations without source messages or publication approval should remain unpublished.

Acceptable testimonial types

Verified attributed

Customer + Person + Role + Approved Quote

This is the strongest form where publication permission is available.

Verified role / company, name withheld

Example:

• Maintenance Manager — Cement Plant
• Use only where disclosure has been approved

Verified anonymous

Example:

• Industrial Manufacturing Customer
• Suitable when confidentiality requires anonymity

Unverified

Customer logos

Doing business with an organisation does not automatically grant permission to display its logo.

Before publication, confirm:

• Relationship Verified
• Logo Source Verified
• Publication Permission
• The same rule applies to brand logos and OEM identities
• A logo can imply a relationship
• Therefore its use requires governance

Project photographs

Project images should be classified correctly.

Reddy-owned photograph

Confirm location/context and publication suitability.

Customer-supplied image

Obtain publication permission.

OEM product image

Respect applicable manufacturer usage rights.

Stock image

Never present it as an actual Reddy Compressors project.

OEM & manufacturer claims

If an OEM datasheet states:

“Up to 500 CFM”

Reddy Compressors should not silently rewrite this as:

• “Delivers 500 CFM under all conditions.”
• Manufacturer-specific information should preserve its actual scope

The same applies to:

• • pressure
• • fuel consumption
• • sound
• • ambient rating
• • energy claims
• • service intervals
• • warranty
• Attribution protects technical meaning

Capability claims

Claims about Reddy Compressors itself also require evidence.

Examples:

• “We service this equipment.”
• “Rental available.”
• “Parts supported.”
• “Authorised dealer.”
• “Nationwide support.”
• These statements should reflect actual operating capability

This prevents a broad knowledge platform from being mistaken for unlimited commercial capability.

Rental-fleet claims

Rental equipment availability changes.

Therefore a useful distinction is:

Verified fleet capability

versus:

Real-time availability

The first can remain valid over time.

The second requires confirmation before commitment.

A fleet page should not make yesterday's availability look permanent.

Certification claims

No certification should be presented as belonging to Reddy Compressors unless:

• • the document exists
• • the correct entity owns it
• • the scope matches the statement
• • its current status is understood

Likewise, a manufacturer's certification should not be converted into a Reddy Compressors corporate certification.

Claims must remain attached to the correct entity.

Response-time claims

Industrial urgency is real.

But statements such as:

“Engineer onsite within two hours.”

or:

“Guaranteed 24/7 attendance.”

should appear only where actual operational capability and a defined commitment support them.

Otherwise, Reddy Compressors should describe emergency coordination accurately without inventing a guaranteed SLA.

SEO must never override evidence

This is one of the strongest rules in the current source master.

A search-optimised headline such as:

• “How Reddy Compressors Saved a Cement Plant 12% Energy”
• must not be published merely because it is attractive for search
• If the 12% has not reached evidence-approved status, the title is not ready

A safer version might explain:

• Reddy Compressors' Evidence-Led Approach to Compressed-Air Optimisation
• until the actual outcome is documented
• Search visibility is valuable
• Credibility is more valuable

Technical content claims

The evidence policy also applies to engineering articles.

Technical articles should distinguish:

Physical / engineering principle

General engineering concept.

Manufacturer-specific information

Requires appropriate manufacturer data.

Engineering estimate

Assumptions must be shown.

Reddy project result

Requires project evidence.

Formulas & calculations

A formula should show:

• Formula
• Symbol Definitions
• Units
• Assumptions
• Limitations
• Worked Example

A calculator should never produce a precise-looking output while hiding uncertain inputs.

Transparent calculations create better engineering decisions.

Structured data & schema

Search-engine markup cannot be used to make invisible or unsupported claims.

If structured data says something about:

• • FAQ answers
• • author
• • review
• • organisation
• • product
• • article
• the visible page should support it
• Schema describes the page

It should not become an alternate marketing layer containing stronger claims than the content customers can actually read.

Corrections policy

Evidence governance does not end once a page goes live.

If a material error is discovered:

Correct it

Update the modified date.

Where appropriate, add a correction note.

Preserve internal change history for substantive technical changes.

A credible engineering platform should be capable of correcting itself.

Content ages

Equipment changes.

Regulations change.

Models are discontinued.

Specifications change.

Evidence becomes outdated.

Therefore technical content should not remain permanently untouched.

Pages can move through states such as:

• Editorial Reviewed
• Technically Reviewed
• Evidence Reviewed
• Published
• Update Required
• Archived

What we will not publish

These controls protect the customer and the Reddy Compressors brand.

Evidence can become a competitive advantage

Evidence governance is sometimes treated as a restriction.

It should be treated as an asset.

Imagine a future Reddy Compressors project page showing:

• APPLICATION — VERIFIED
• EQUIPMENT — VERIFIED
• INTERVENTION — VERIFIED
• OUTCOME — MEASURED
• MEASUREMENT PERIOD — SHOWN
• PUBLICATION — CUSTOMER APPROVED
• That communicates far more authority than exaggerated marketing language

The reddy compressors evidence standard

Measured

Where direct measurement exists.

Documented

Where project records exist.

Calculated

Where transparent calculations are used.

Attributed

Where information comes from manufacturers or customers.

Verified

Where evidence has been reviewed.

Approved

Where customer-specific information has publication permission.

Trust should be auditable

If Reddy Compressors says:

• This project happened
• There should be project evidence

If we say:

• This result was measured
• There should be measurement evidence

If we say:

• This customer said this
• There should be an authentic customer source

If we say:

• We are authorised by this manufacturer
• There should be documentation supporting that exact status

If we say:

• This compressor delivers this specification
• There should be technical documentation supporting the model and configuration

Closing

• We do not need more claims
• We need stronger evidence behind the claims that matter

Not because every statement sounds impressive.

But because important statements can be traced back to evidence.

Reddy compressors

• Compressed air. engineered for uptime
• Claims & evidence standard
• No invented savings
• No fabricated testimonials
• No unsupported success stories
• No false certainty

Measured • Documented • Verified • Approved

Primary CTA

Explore Verified Projects & Evidence

Secondary CTAs

Explore Compliance & Technical Governance

View Quality Philosophy

Explore Projects & Case Studies

Submit Project Evidence

Discuss a Technical Requirement