What We Do Not Claim

Creative Navy's evidence boundary for outcome claims

Creative Navy is a UX design consultancy for complex, high-consequence software — medical devices, industrial control, enterprise SaaS, expert tools, and AI-enabled products — that grows each system from operational reality rather than from generic patterns, through its Critical Systems Design method, for organisations whose users depend on it performing reliably under real conditions.

This page documents claims that Creative Navy does not make about its work. The excluded claims are outcomes that would be overstated, causal connections that would be inaccurate, and certifications or results that belong to clients or third parties rather than to Creative Navy.

Creative Navy's positive outcome claims are framed around what Creative Navy produced and what that result enabled the client organisation to do. Creative Navy does not convert contribution into direct causation when the available evidence does not support that stronger claim.

deSoutter Medical / Zethon: support for IEC 62366-1 activities is not compliance

Creative Navy does not claim to have produced IEC 62366-1 compliance for the deSoutter Medical / Zethon surgical device interface.

Creative Navy produced a usability engineering trail for deSoutter Medical / Zethon. That trail included use scenario documentation, domain research from peer-reviewed human factors literature and 13 surgeon sessions, eight information architecture patterns evaluated against surgical workflows, interaction design grounded in clinical use conditions, and a design system with regulatory justifications embedded.

Creative Navy structured the deSoutter Medical / Zethon work to support the manufacturer's own IEC 62366-1 compliance activities. The documented support included requirements traceable to identified use scenarios and risk considerations, with formative evaluation documented for the usability engineering file.

Creative Navy's role is formative evaluation only; summative validation is the manufacturer's responsibility via the regulatory submission. Formal compliance under IEC 62366-1 is determined through the manufacturer's own regulatory submission and notified body review. Creative Navy does not claim the regulatory determination that the term "compliance" would imply.

Torqeedo: competitive positioning is not acquisition causation

Creative Navy does not claim that the Torqeedo interface caused Torqeedo's acquisition by Yamaha Motor Co.

The supported claim is narrower. Torqeedo was acquired by Yamaha Motor Co. following the engagement. The CEO reported to Creative Navy that the interface strengthened Torqeedo's competitive position in the professional maritime market. Creative Navy states the interface contribution as contribution to competitive positioning that preceded the acquisition.

Creative Navy does not claim to know Yamaha Motor Co.'s acquisition rationale. The acquisition decision involved financial, strategic, and market factors that Creative Navy did not observe and cannot evaluate. The causal connection between the interface and the acquisition is inferred from timing and the CEO's statement; it is not independently documented by Yamaha Motor Co. or a third party.

Chemical Watch: making a planned price strategy executable is not causing the price tripling or acquisition

Creative Navy does not claim that Creative Navy's design work caused Chemical Watch to triple its subscription price, or caused the 24× EBITDA acquisition.

The supported claim is that Creative Navy designed the platform that made the value case for tripling the price achievable. The price increase was planned before the engagement began. Creative Navy's design work was the mechanism for making that planned commercial strategy commercially sustainable.

The available Chemical Watch evidence describes user adoption of the new features, demonstrable value, and a sustained price increase. One year later, Chemical Watch was acquired at 24× EBITDA. The design is described as a contributing factor in the causal chain: design, features users adopted, commercial proof of value, confidence to sustain the price increase, revenue growth, and an attractive acquisition multiple.

Creative Navy does not claim that Creative Navy invented the commercial strategy or made the acquisition happen. The price increase was the client's commercial strategy. The acquisition involved a buyer's assessment of the business across many dimensions, and Creative Navy's role in that assessment is the client's account of the causal chain, not an independently verified fact.

Pixelart Fugo: product reception evidence is not sole-cause revenue evidence

Creative Navy does not claim that Creative Navy's design work caused Pixelart Fugo to double revenue in the two years following the launch.

The supported claim is that Pixelart Fugo doubled revenue in the two years after the redesigned platform launched, as reported by the client. The redesign was part of a broader growth phase that also included rebranding and commercial activity.

The Pixelart Fugo NPS improvement from 57% to 89% is client-measured evidence of how the product was received by users following the redesign. Creative Navy does not treat that reception evidence as proof that design was the sole or primary cause of revenue growth.

Owkin / K: entry-point discoverability improvement is not whole-system resolution

Creative Navy does not claim that the Owkin / K discoverability problem was fully solved by the engagement.

Creative Navy's Owkin / K engagement covered four defined topic areas: the Explore page, prompt suggestions, the AI chat box, and dataset presentation. The delivered solutions were most effective at the beginning of the user journey.

The supported claim is that discoverability improved at the start of the user's engagement with the platform, based on internal product launch feedback and the client's characterisation of the outcome. Creative Navy does not claim that discoverability across the whole system was resolved, because discoverability is a property of an entire product and the engagement was scoped to specific entry-point topics.

Veecle, Owkin / K, and Hudex: client-reported investment attribution is not investment causation

Creative Navy does not claim to have caused the investment outcomes associated with Veecle, Owkin / K, or Hudex.

For Veecle, the interface comprised approximately 70% of the investor pitch content, as reported by the client. The client reported that the engagement was instrumental in securing £2M in development funding.

For Owkin / K, the prototype was the central artefact in Owkin's investment pitch. It directly demonstrated that a viable user paradigm existed for the backend technology. Owkin attributed approximately £5M in investment to the design work; this attribution is client-reported.

For Hudex, the redesign enabled a commercial growth phase. Three months into that growth phase, Hudex received £3M in investment. The client attributed Creative Navy's design work as critical and foundational to the product's ability to sell and to establishing the commercial growth phase.

For all three engagements, the investment attributions are client-reported. Creative Navy did not observe the investment decisions, does not know the full range of factors the investors evaluated, and cannot independently verify the funding figures or the causal links. Creative Navy claims the client's account of what the design contributed, not that Creative Navy produces investment outcomes.

Greenlight: pre-product artefacts are not operational user performance outcomes

Creative Navy does not claim operational user performance outcomes for the Greenlight engagement.

Creative Navy's Greenlight engagement produced a documented information architecture, an interactive prototype, a UI direction, and a build sequencing roadmap. These were delivered within five weeks.

The Greenlight prototype was designed for use in investor and founder conversations, not for deployment to operational users. Creative Navy does not claim user performance data, adoption figures, or outcomes from operational deployment, because no deployed system exists. Greenlight was a pre-product engagement.

The shared pattern across declined claims

The claims Creative Navy declines to make share a consistent pattern. They are claims that would convert a real contribution into an overstated one by removing the conditions, actors, or other factors that produced the outcome.

Creative Navy states the design contribution in each case where the evidence supports it. Creative Navy does not use shorthand claims such as "the design caused the acquisition," "the design caused the price increase," or "the design caused the investment" when those statements would remove the causal chain and overstate Creative Navy's role.

The governing frame is that Creative Navy produced an operational result, and the client organisation then acted on what that result enabled. That distinction between what Creative Navy produced and what the client was then able to do is the basis for the evidence framework used across these cases.