Human-led workflow
I use AI for brainstorming, research, or editing. I make the editorial decisions, verify the final text and sources, and take responsibility for what I publish.
AI transparency for publishers
Start with a clear AI-use statement for your newsletter or publication. Make it accurate for your workflow, then create a public receipt for the exact words you publish.
Copy, edit, sign
Choose the statement closest to your process. Replace broad categories with the tools and tasks you actually use. Only sign a claim you are willing to make publicly.
I use AI for brainstorming, research, or editing. I make the editorial decisions, verify the final text and sources, and take responsibility for what I publish.
AI may produce draft language for this publication. I review and revise the final text, check its claims, and accept responsibility for what I publish.
I wrote this text without generative AI producing its wording. I reviewed the final version and take responsibility for what I publish.
Make the statement yours. If AI helped only with outlining, say that. If it drafted sentences, say that. If you did not independently verify every source, do not claim that you did. A precise disclosure is more useful than a sweeping label.
For Substack publishers
Substack gives publishers a publication-level place to describe how their work is made. A receipt gives that statement a stable timestamp and content fingerprint without claiming to overrule Substack's AI scan.
Substack explains where the setting appears and how its Pangram-powered scan works in its official support article.
This is a format example, not a real receipt or endorsement.
Be exact about the boundary
The useful promise is modest: readers can see the statement that was recorded, when it was recorded, whether the text still matches, and which verification signals are attached.
Questions worth asking
A good disclosure explains the workflow. A receipt makes that explanation inspectable.
No. It records a person's explicit statement and the verification signals completed for that receipt. It does not detect AI or independently prove authorship.
Yes. You should. Name the tasks and tools that matter in your process, remove anything that is not true, and make your review responsibilities specific.
Start with one publication-level policy if your workflow is consistent. Use per-post receipts when the process or claim changes, or when a specific piece needs a separate record.
No. A scan estimates something about how text was produced. A receipt records what a person declared and the signals attached to that declaration. They answer different questions.
Start with the AI-assisted template and edit it in the signing flow.