Disclosure guide
A useful AI disclosure says what the tool changed—not simply that it was present.
“AI was used” is often too vague, while “100% human” is usually too absolute. A credible disclosure names the stage, tool role, human review, and responsibility for the final text.
Name the stage
Research, brainstorming, outlining, drafting, rewriting, translation, and proofreading are materially different uses.
Name the responsibility
State who checked sources, edited the output, and accepts responsibility for the final claims and wording.
Follow the real policy
A school, client, publication, or platform may define assistance differently; use its standard when applicable.
Decide what is material
A spell-check correction does not carry the same authorship significance as generated paragraphs. Consider whether the tool supplied substantive ideas, selected evidence, changed meaning, produced publishable wording, or translated content the author could not independently verify.
When uncertain, disclose briefly rather than forcing the reader to guess. Keep internal records of prompts or tool outputs when policy or stakes require them, but do not publish private or licensed material merely to prove transparency.
Write a disclosure readers can understand
A concise statement can follow this pattern: “I used [tool or category] for [specific stage]. I selected and revised the output, checked [sources or facts], and take responsibility for the final text.” Remove any clause that is not true for the work.
If no generative tool affected the final wording, say what process evidence supports instead of claiming universal absence: “The final post was written in the recorded HumanTyped session shown in this receipt. The receipt does not observe activity outside that editor.”
Connect disclosure and process evidence
A process receipt and AI disclosure complement each other. The receipt describes observable activity in one environment; the disclosure accounts for assistance and decisions that may have occurred elsewhere.
Do not hide a mixed workflow behind a high evidence score or treat disclosure as an admission of low-quality work. The relevant question is whether the reader receives accurate context about how the text was produced and reviewed.
Evidence, not certainty