# Saying what AI made
> **What you will learn**
> The first item under **taking responsibility**, the last of [the four
> moves](/guide/ai-four-ds). What has to be disclosed and what does not, how to
> actually write the sentence, and why a disclaimer is not a disclosure.
## Why you need a rule
In an organisation without a disclosure rule, two things happen at once.
```
One side: says nothing at all
→ when it comes out later, it reads as concealment
The other: "This document was produced with the assistance of AI" on
everything
→ a sentence carrying no information, stuck on everywhere
```
**Both are ways of avoiding the judgement.** Disclosure is not all-or-nothing; it
is a question of **how far.**
## Three questions
Disclose if **any one** of these is yes.
```mermaid
graph TD
Q1["Would the recipient judge
differently knowing this?"] --> Y["Disclose"]
Q2["Does a contract, regulation, or
norm require it?"] --> Y
Q3["Would it be a problem
if it came out later?"] --> Y
Q1 --> N["No disclosure needed"]
Q2 --> N
Q3 --> N
```
### 1. Would the recipient judge differently?
The core question. **If the judgement does not change, the reason to disclose is
weak.**
```
Spellcheck done with AI → judgement unchanged. No disclosure
Meeting minutes summarised by AI → usually unchanged
Market figures gathered by AI → it changes. Disclose
AI involved in evaluating people → changes a lot. Always
```
### 2. Is it required?
This one is a lookup, not a judgement. Public tenders, finance, healthcare, and
academia often have explicit requirements →
[Regulation and compliance](/guide/ax-compliance)
### 3. Would it be a problem if it came out later?
**"Do I feel awkward disclosing this?" is a good signal.** If you do, the answer
to the first question is usually already yes.
## Split it into tiers
| Tier | What | How |
|---|---|---|
| **No disclosure** | Spelling, draft translation, formatting | Nothing |
| **Internal record only** | Drafting, collating, classifying | In the log, not in the document |
| **Note in the document** | Research and analysis, outbound material | State it in a sentence |
| **Individual notice** | A judgement about a person is involved | Directly, with a route to object |
**The second row is the most common one and the most often skipped.** Even when
it does not go in the document, **it has to live somewhere.** That somewhere is
the [audit log](/guide/cn-audit); the design is in [Audit trail and
observability](/guide/ax-audit-trail).
## How to write the sentence
The difference between a useless sentence and a useful one is **whether three
things are in it.**
```
✗ "This document was produced with the assistance of AI."
→ nothing about what was done, who checked it, or what not to trust
```
```
✓ "The market data in section 3 was gathered and collated with an AI
tool, then checked against the original sources by the author.
The outlook in section 4 is the author's own and used no AI."
```
### The three things
| Include | Why |
|---|---|
| **Where** it was used | Scopes it, instead of the whole document |
| **What job** it did | Gathering, drafting, or judging |
| **What the person did** | This is what fixes responsibility |
The third matters most. **A sentence that ends at "AI did it" leaves
responsibility floating in the air.** What the recipient wants to know is not the
tool but **who stands behind this result.**
### The short form
Where the document only allows one line, compress it:
```
"Collection: AI tool / Verification: J. Kim / Judgement: J. Kim"
```
## A disclaimer is not a disclosure
The most common mistake.
```
✗ "AI-generated content; accuracy is not guaranteed. Responsibility
for use lies with the user."
```
That is not disclosure, it is **a sentence handing responsibility to the other
party.** And it usually does not work either — responsibility for what we
produced and sent does not vanish because of it.
> **Disclosure says what we did.
> A disclaimer says it is not our fault.**
If the recipient genuinely has to share the verification burden, the right move
is not a disclaimer but telling them **what to verify.**
```
✓ "Prices are as of the collection date (4 March) and may change.
Please confirm on the source site before ordering."
```
## Planting it in the organisation
Left to personal conscientiousness, it will not hold. **You have to make a place
for it in the document template and the workflow.**
```
✗ Announce "please disclose when you use AI" → gone within weeks
✓ Put an "AI use" field in the report template → an empty field is visible
✓ Add it to the approval checklist → it catches at sign-off
✓ Have the tool record it automatically → it happens without people
```
The fourth is the sturdiest, and running three and four together is what real
operations look like. For the part that asks people to form new habits →
[Change management](/guide/ax-change-management)
---
## Check
**1. What is the first question that decides whether to disclose?**
Answer
**"Would the recipient judge differently knowing this?"** Work that does not
change the judgement (spellcheck, formatting) has a weak reason to be disclosed;
work that does (gathered figures, judgements about people) must be.
**2. Why is "produced with the assistance of AI" not enough?**
Answer
Because it contains none of **where, what job, and what the person did.** Missing
the last one especially leaves responsibility unassigned. The recipient wants to
know who stands behind the result, not which tool was used.
**3. What is the difference between a disclaimer and a disclosure?**
Answer
A disclosure says **what we did**; a disclaimer says **it is not our fault.** A
disclaimer hands responsibility to the other party, so it is not disclosure, and
it usually has no effect either. If they must share the verification burden, tell
them what to verify.
---
Now design the POC for real →
[Phase 3 — design and run a POC](/guide/ax-phase3-poc)