Who is affected

  • Agencies that must answer client audits.
  • Marketing teams with approval workflows.
  • Legal teams proving review history.

What triggers the rule

  • Any AI involvement in a published asset.
  • Client contracts requiring AI-use transparency.
  • Internal approval policies.

What does not trigger it / exceptions

  • Assets with zero AI involvement can carry a short “no AI use” attestation instead.

Scenario table

ScenarioOutcomeWhy
Campaign asset with AI backgroundDisclosure recommendedThe manifest records the generated component, tool and reviewer, and feeds the disclosure wording.
Fully human-produced assetNo disclosure identifiedA “no AI use” attestation closes the audit question.

Required action

  1. Record component-level AI use, not just “made with AI”.
  2. Name the reviewer and the decision date.
  3. Version manifests against rule versions.

Practical marketing examples

  • Background: AI-generated (Tool X). Product: photographed. Reviewer: A. Kowalska, 2026-09-12.

Relation to platform policy

Manifests feed platform-native labels with accurate component-level wording — and remain after platforms strip file metadata.

Not sure which scenario matches your asset?

Run the free check — result, wording and sources in under a minute.

Check this scenario

Primary sources

    Methodology: Disclara answers are generated from a versioned rule set citing primary sources, reviewed by humans. Information on this page is not legal advice. See sources & methodology and rule changelog.