The Disclosure Receipt

A HARVEST KERNEL WORKING SESSION

Take one piece of writing that is still in progress and build the record you would want if someone asked how it was made. You leave holding a finished receipt: the venue’s policy quoted and dated, what AI touched, where your record lives, and a disclosure sentence you could defend with your log open. You do the thinking. Nothing here writes it for you, and nothing you type leaves this page.

Why this exists. On October 27, a faculty committee reported on the AI use of Dartmouth’s provost. It did not use an AI detector. It read logs, email, what he told a reporter, and publisher policies as they stood at submission and at publication. Its findings turned on disclosure and on the distance between his descriptions and the record. Publisher rules can also reach further than people assume: Springer Nature asks authors to describe even grammar editing and translation. This session is one way to get ahead of that. It is a judgment call, not a tested fix and not legal advice, and it will not rescue a use your venue bars outright.

SEED

Name the piece and copy the rule

Pick one thing with your name on it and someone’s rules over it: a manuscript, a column, a grant section. Go read the venue’s AI policy now, not the version you remember from your last submission. Copy the sentence that applies, word for word. If the policy changed since you started, copy both versions. If the venue has no policy, write that down, with the date you checked.

The piece of writing

The venue

The policy sentence, copied word for word

The date you read it, and where

SPROUT

List what AI touched

Go down the list and be literal. Write what the tool did, in verbs. If it did nothing in that row, write “nothing.” The rows are here because the Dartmouth report found use in more than prose: code, figures and a simulated peer review all show up in its logs.

Text: drafting, rewording, restructuring, grammar

Code and data

Figures and images

Translation and summarizing

References and sources

Critique: asking a tool to review or stress test it

Every tool and account you used, personal accounts included

GROW

Save the record while it still exists

A receipt is only as good as what backs it. Some chat histories can be deleted, and nobody else can pull a personal account for you later. Decide now where this record lives, and name the moment a tool changed what you actually argued, if there was one. Then decide what stayed yours.

Where your drafts and prompts are saved

The prompt that changed your argument the most, or “none”

What stayed yours: the argument, the claims, the conclusions

HARVEST

Write the sentence, then read it with your log open

Use the venue’s own terms where it has them, and plain verbs. Say what the tool did. Do not say “assisted” if it rewrote. Then read your sentence the way a stranger holding your log would. If that stranger would say it understates, rewrite it. If you have co-authors, show them before it goes in.

Your disclosure sentence

Co-authors or colleagues who need to see this, or “none”

How many courses are you teaching this term?

0 of 17 fields filled

The Disclosure Receipt