# How to Build a Claims Matrix (That Survives MLR)

> A practical guide to building a pharmaceutical claims matrix — structure, columns, referencing standards, maintenance — and why spreadsheets break down as the single source of truth for claims and their supporting evidence.

> A **claims matrix** (also: claims library, core claims document) is the controlled inventory of statements a company is permitted to make about a product, each paired with its approved supporting evidence. A good one answers three questions instantly for any claim: *What exactly may we say? What substantiates it? Where has it been used?* Most teams build it in Excel. Most teams also discover why that breaks.

## The minimum viable structure

Each row is one claim. The columns that earn their place:

| Column | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Claim ID | Stable identifier — decks and documents reference it, not the wording |
| Approved claim text (verbatim) | The exact language MLR approved; paraphrase is where drift starts |
| Claim type | Efficacy / safety / MOA / dosing / QoL — reviewers triage by type |
| Supporting reference(s) | Full citation for each source |
| **Evidence locator** | Page/column/paragraph/line of the substantiating passage — e.g. `Pasieka 2020/pg3/col1/para2`. This is what your reviewer and VEEVA vault operator actually need |
| Status | Draft / approved / retired — with dates |
| Approved use context | Audience (HCP vs patient), geography, channel restrictions |
| Fair balance / ISI pairing | Safety language that must accompany the claim (US) |
| Version & history | What changed, when, why |

The **evidence locator** column is the one most spreadsheets skip and most reviewers silently rebuild by hand. Writers annotate deliverables with exactly this format — "annotated references" in US usage, "referenced copy" in UK usage — so carrying it in the matrix means the annotation is a lookup, not an archaeology project.

## Referencing standards worth adopting

1. **Verbatim or nothing.** The matrix stores approved language; any wording change is a new claim (or a new version) that re-enters review.
2. **One claim, one row, every source.** A claim substantiated by two papers lists both locators; a "package" of claims is a deliverable concern, not a matrix concern.
3. **Locators to the paragraph, not the paper.** "Smith 2023" is not substantiation; `Smith 2023/pg1430/col2/para2/lines1–3` is. Reviewers in regulated promotion work at this granularity — your matrix should too.
4. **Retire, never delete.** A retired claim still lives in old material; deleting the row destroys the audit trail exactly when you need it.

## Where spreadsheets break

- **No propagation.** The source of truth changes — updated PI, new data cut, retired claim — and every deck that used the old row stays silently wrong. The matrix can't tell you *where* a claim was used.
- **No drift detection.** The deck says "42%," the matrix says "38%," and nothing notices until a reviewer does.
- **Version chaos.** `claims_matrix_FINAL_v7_KM_edits.xlsx` is a punchline because it's true.
- **Annotation is manual.** Every deliverable's reference pack gets rebuilt by hand from the same rows.

These are database problems, not discipline problems — which is why the category is moving from spreadsheets to claim-aware tools. (Lithero explicitly markets against "claims matrix spreadsheets"; our own product, [Claims](/), makes the matrix a live library: each claim deep-linked to its evidence locator, usage tracked across every Word/PowerPoint deliverable, revisions propagating with full version lineage, and drift caught by an agentic pre-review.)

## Maintenance cadence that actually holds

- **On every new data source:** run new-reference triage — which existing claims does this strengthen, weaken, or retire?
- **On every PI/SmPC update:** mandatory matrix review; label changes are the #1 source of newly-unsupported claims.
- **Quarterly:** usage audit — which approved claims are actually deployed, which retired claims still appear in circulating material.
- **Always:** the matrix owner is named, singular, and empowered. Shared ownership is no ownership.

Build it in a spreadsheet if you must start there — the structure above works anywhere. But treat the spreadsheet as the prototype of a system, because at more than ~50 claims or 2 writers, that's what you'll need.

---
Source: https://medcom.claims/resources/how-to-build-a-claims-matrix/ · Updated 2026-07-13 · © Mantir, Inc.