Writing review guides · Drafts and decisions
How to Document AI Editing Assistance: A Draft and Decision Log
Keep the available drafts, describe the assistance you requested and record material choices. A useful AI editing log makes the revision easier to inspect. It does not certify authorship or replace the requirements of your school, publisher or workplace.
Publisher: VEYTHARA by ETHARA™ · Ethara Global Technologies Inc. · Published 15 October 2026
Method: the fictional paragraph and completed worksheet below were created for this guide. They demonstrate a review method; they are not an observed product test or a real research finding.
Start with the policy that applies to this work
Before editing, check the instructions for this particular assignment, publication or project. Note what help is permitted, what must be disclosed and whether drafts or tool records must be retained. If a requirement is unclear, ask the responsible person before relying on an editing tool.
There is no single disclosure sentence that establishes compliance everywhere. Record the policy title, version or date and the relevant requirement. Keep that reference with your work rather than assuming a familiar rule applies to a new task.
Record the editing task and supplied material
Give each available draft a short identifier, such as D1-original and D2-reviewed. Record when you requested assistance, the tool used and the requested scope. “Correct agreement and punctuation; retain cautious language” tells a reviewer more than “improve this.” If the tool version is unavailable, say so.
Identify supplied sources using useful locations: S1, paragraph 2, for example. Separate your description of the task from the tool’s suggestion and your final decision. Preserve the original available file; do not overwrite it with the accepted revision. A date you enter is a stated date, not independent authentication.
Separate grammar corrections from changed ideas or claims
Illustrative original: “The workshop notes suggests that shorter forms may help this small team complete requests faster. The notes do not establish a result for other teams.”
Illustrative supplied passage S1: “Three team members reported that the shorter form felt easier to complete. No completion-time measurements were taken.”
| Proposed change | Decision | Reviewer note |
|---|---|---|
| “notes suggests” → “notes suggest” | Accept | Corrects agreement; retains the claim’s qualifications. |
| “may help … complete requests faster” → “improves productivity” | Reject | Adds certainty and a broader outcome that S1 does not establish. |
| Replace the first sentence with “Three team members reported that the shorter form felt easier to complete.” | Revise | Narrow the claim to the actual supplied report; retain the second sentence. |
| Remove “for other teams” | Reject | Keep the limit on generalization visible. |
The final version accepts a grammar correction and narrows an unsupported speed claim. The log explains both choices. For a closer check, use the draft meaning checklist and the claim–evidence worksheet.
Write a precise disclosure
Illustrative wording: “I used an AI tool to suggest grammar and clarity edits. I reviewed the suggestions, checked claims against the supplied passages and made the final editing decisions.”
Use this wording only if it accurately describes your process. Name the tool, date, affected sections or other details when required. If assistance also supplied ideas, analysis or substantial new text, describe that contribution accurately; a proofreading-only statement would leave out material information. This example does not guarantee compliance.
Copy a minimal review packet
Keep the original excerpt, proposed revision, final excerpt, source locations and decision log together. Use the template below in a document or your own notes. Add detail where a change affects meaning; a separate entry for every corrected comma is rarely useful unless your governing process requires it.
Work / section: Applicable policy and date: Tool / date / version if known: Requested assistance: Available drafts: D1 / D2 / final Supplied sources and locations: Change | accept / reject / revise | reason Checks completed / unresolved questions: Disclosure used: Materials omitted from this record: Reviewer and review date:
Keep private material out of the packet
Include only information needed to understand the revision. Remove unnecessary personal details and third-party confidential material before sharing or uploading. Keep a redacted sharing copy separate from any original you are authorized to retain. Check permission and the privacy notice before sending drafts or samples to a service.
What this record can and cannot show
A packet shows the material supplied and the decisions recorded. Missing drafts, omitted prompts or later edits remain missing. It cannot establish author identity, reconstruct a complete writing history from fragments or prove who originated every idea. A reviewed sentence can still contain an error.
VEYTHARA offers a free writing test without sign-in. Saved review cases require sign-in. The draft review workspace works with supplied drafts and notes; this guide does not describe automatic capture of every writing action. For institutional workflows, see VEYTHARA for universities.
A text-and-evidence review pilot by Ethara Global Technologies Inc.
Final judgments about evidence, meaning and attribution remain with the reviewer.
