[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":30},["ShallowReactive",2],{"blog-body-ai-content-disclosure-guide-en":3},{"content":4,"toc":5},"\u003Cp>Most of the anxiety around AI disclosure comes from a misread of what it is for. The question is not whether a tool was involved. It is whether the reader is being given an accurate impression of how the content was produced and how much it can be trusted.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Framed that way, the rules become much easier to apply. Most sites need one short, plainly worded statement. The problems arise from two opposite mistakes: saying nothing at all, and adding a disclaimer so broad that it tells the reader nothing either way.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"what-disclosure-is-actually-about\">What disclosure is actually about\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>A reader forms assumptions when they read a piece. If it describes a process, they assume somebody followed that process. If it reads as a first-hand account, they assume somebody had that experience. If it presents a professional opinion, they assume a professional holds it.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Disclosure exists to correct an assumption that would otherwise be wrong. That is the whole function. Which means the question to answer is specific: is there anything about how this piece was made that a reasonable reader would assume differently if they knew?\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"when-a-statement-is-expected\">When a statement is expected\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>The signal to look for is a gap between the implied author and the actual one. A statement is usually warranted when:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cul>\n  \u003Cli>The piece is presented as first-hand experience — a review, a test, a case study — and the experience was synthesised rather than lived.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>The piece offers professional or expert judgement, and no qualified human has actually reviewed the substance.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>The piece presents facts or figures that were generated rather than sourced.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>The piece is published under a person's name or a branded editorial voice that implies a specific human author.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\n\u003Cp>Conversely, a statement is usually not needed when the content is plainly reference material — a definition, a table of specifications, a summary of a documented process — and carries no implied experience or judgement.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"what-a-useful-disclosure-says\">What a useful disclosure says\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>An effective statement answers three things in two or three sentences: what was produced with assistance, what a human did to it, and who is accountable for it.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>A version that works:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>This article was drafted with the help of AI tools and then edited, fact-checked and reworked by our editorial team. Every claim about our own process comes from our own records. If anything here reads as inaccurate, tell us and we will correct it.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\n\u003Cp>Note what it does not do. It does not claim the content is reviewed when it is not. It does not list tool names, which are irrelevant to the reader and will date quickly. And it does not hedge so broadly — \"content may have been generated in part or in whole\" — that the reader cannot tell what actually happened.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>The last point matters more than it looks. A disclaimer that covers every possible case is written to protect the publisher, not to inform the reader, and readers recognise it as such.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"where-to-put-it\">Where to put it\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>Placement depends on how much the reader's expectation matters for that specific piece.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>For most content, one line at the foot of the article is sufficient, in the same visual style as the byline rather than in a separate legal-looking box. Making it visually alarming overstates its importance and implies the content is less trustworthy than it is.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>For anything presented as experience, testing, or expert judgement, the statement belongs near the top, before the reader has invested attention in the assumption. Correcting an impression after the reader has finished is not disclosure; it is a footnote.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>A site-level policy page is worth having as well, covering how AI is used across the publication, but it does not replace the per-piece statement. Readers do not go looking for a policy page in order to evaluate the article in front of them.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"disclosure-and-search-engines\">Disclosure and search engines\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>Search engines care about the substance of a page, not about the label on it. Content that demonstrates experience, addresses real questions, and holds up under scrutiny performs regardless of how it was drafted — and content that does none of those things does not improve by being labelled.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>This is worth stating plainly because a lot of advice implies that disclosure is a penalty to be managed. It is not. The failure mode search engines act against is content published at scale with no added value, and that failure is a property of the content, not of the disclosure.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>What disclosure does change is trust. A site that states its process clearly and then consistently produces content worth reading accumulates something a site that says nothing cannot.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"the-review-versus-generation-line\">The review-versus-generation line\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>Statements often claim more review than actually happened. \"Reviewed by our editorial team\" means someone read it for accuracy and changed what was wrong. It does not mean someone glanced at it before publishing.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cp>Decide honestly which of these describes your process, and write the statement to match:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cul>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Generated, unchecked.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Rarely defensible for anything a reader will act on. If this is the process, fix the process before writing about it.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Generated, light edit.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Read for coherence and tone. Accuracy not independently verified. Say so.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Generated, fact-checked.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Every specific claim verified against a source or against your own records. Say so, and mean it.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Human-written with AI assistance.\u003C\u002Fstrong> The argument and the experience are the author's; AI helped with structure or phrasing. Say so.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\n\u003Cp>The wording follows from the category, and the category is a description of your workflow rather than a public-relations position.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"common-ways-sites-get-this-wrong\">Common ways sites get this wrong\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cul>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>The blanket disclaimer.\u003C\u002Fstrong> A single site-wide sentence that says content may be AI-generated, applied to everything. It tells the reader nothing about the piece they are reading.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Disclosing in a place nobody looks.\u003C\u002Fstrong> A line in the terms of service is not disclosure.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Disclosing but not editing.\u003C\u002Fstrong> A statement that content is reviewed, attached to content that clearly was not. The mismatch is more damaging than the original problem.\u003C\u002Fli>\n  \u003Cli>\u003Cstrong>Not disclosing because the topic is technical.\u003C\u002Fstrong> Skill level has no bearing on whether an implied experience was real.\u003C\u002Fli>\n\u003C\u002Ful>\n\n\u003Ch2 id=\"a-template-you-can-adapt\">A template you can adapt\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\n\u003Cp>Write one paragraph and reuse it with the specifics changed:\u003C\u002Fp>\n\n\u003Cblockquote>\n\u003Cp>How this was made: drafted with AI assistance, then [edited and fact-checked by \u003Cem>role\u003C\u002Fem> \u002F reviewed by \u003Cem>role\u003C\u002Fem> \u002F checked against our own records]. [Any claim drawn from our own testing or data is described as such in the text.] Corrections welcome at \u003Cem>contact\u003C\u002Fem>.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\n\n\u003Cp>Keep it short enough that readers actually read it. A disclosure that nobody finishes has the same information content as no disclosure, while creating the impression that the publisher is being careful — which, if the underlying content is not careful, is the wrong impression to give.\u003C\u002Fp>",[6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27],{"id":7,"text":8},"what-disclosure-is-actually-about","What disclosure is actually about",{"id":10,"text":11},"when-a-statement-is-expected","When a statement is expected",{"id":13,"text":14},"what-a-useful-disclosure-says","What a useful disclosure says",{"id":16,"text":17},"where-to-put-it","Where to put it",{"id":19,"text":20},"disclosure-and-search-engines","Disclosure and search engines",{"id":22,"text":23},"the-review-versus-generation-line","The review-versus-generation line",{"id":25,"text":26},"common-ways-sites-get-this-wrong","Common ways sites get this wrong",{"id":28,"text":29},"a-template-you-can-adapt","A template you can adapt",1791511468174]