# AI Involvement Labels Disclose Process Not Quality ## Claim An AI-involvement label can disclose how a work was produced, but it cannot establish the work's accuracy, originality, consent, or quality. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - Applies to ordinal authorship and augmentation labels such as AIL 0–5. - A short label should link to a plain-language process note when readers need detail. - Different media and stages may need separate disclosure rather than one blended score. ## Evidence [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/AI Influence Level (AIL) V1.0]] presents a six-level disclosure scale while naming self-reporting, subjective boundaries, and the inability to prove quality or provenance as limits. ## Links - [[Update Signatures Prove Provenance Not Freshness]] — parallels: provenance evidence answers who or how, not whether the artifact is good. - [[Scaled Content Is Defined by Its Production Method Not Its Quality]] — supports: production method and output quality are distinct classifications. - [[An Audit Trail Is Trustworthy Only When It Is a By-Product of the Work]] — extends: process evidence is stronger than a self-applied label alone. - [[3. Resources/Literature Notes/AI Influence Level (AIL) V1.0]] — because evidence-for; the triage entry point for this note's source, added 2026-08-16. - [[3. Resources/MOCs/AI & the Future of Knowledge Work MOC]] — applies-in: the MOC lists this note under Synthesis additions (2026-08-12 — process disclosure).