Creative and clearance, answered in full.

It will write ads that are structurally valid, because the format limits are schema constraints rather than instructions, and it will flag the claims most likely to be challenged before you spend anything on production. What it cannot do is guarantee clearance: the pre-check predicts what Clearcast, the CAA and publishers will flag, and those bodies decide. Where you declare that you hold substantiation for a claim, the system records the declaration and states plainly that it has not assessed the evidence.

No. You can bring finished assets and use the studio only for the channel adaptation and the pre-check, or use it for structure and produce the assets elsewhere. The asset charge only applies to what you actually generate here.

Because free creative is not free, it is bundled, and a bundled cost is one you cannot audit. £15.60 is the top of the ladder rather than the price of video: ten seconds of standard video is £6.00. It is a genuinely harder sell — Universal Ads and Global AdPower both include AI creative — and the honest case is that a visible margin on a small render is better for you than an invisible one inside a media percentage. What this page will not do is quote a "versus traditional production" saving to make the number look generous: we deleted our own such comparison as unsourced and added a test to stop it coming back.

It depends on whether the failure is definite. A definite failure refunds the charge automatically to the wallet, as its own ledger entry referencing the failed job. An ambiguous outcome — where the provider may or may not have produced the asset — retains the charge and disables retry, precisely so a second render cannot be produced and billed, and it is resolved by a named human with reconciliation rights. There is no warn-only path for asset charges at all: a real provider cost is incurred at submit, so the wallet check is a hard gate with no override.

You get the asset and you can use it commercially, and two things are weaker than you might assume. The provider's terms do not grant ownership of generated output and note it may not be unique across customers. And there is no intellectual-property indemnity: under those terms the customer indemnifies the provider rather than the reverse, and output is not warranted original or non-infringing. The default image model, FLUX.1 [schnell], is Apache-2.0 and openly licensed for commercial use; the closed-weight video and audio models rest on the host's documentation rather than a contractual warranty. Each model's position is served next to its price, and an unlisted model reports as unverified rather than permitted.

On TikTok, yes, and the platform enforces it rather than leaving it to you. Video produced here is submitted with a self-disclosure provenance declaration, missing provenance blocks the call before any provider request is made, and the provider readback must still carry the same immutable declaration at resume.