Write an Academic AI Disclosure That Describes the Work You Did

‘AI was used’ leaves a reader with most of the important questions unanswered. Did a tool suggest an outline, edit two sentences, generate code, or draft an entire section? A useful academic disclosure identifies the assistance and explains what you did to evaluate it.

Start with the rule for the particular assignment or publication. Then use a record of your work to describe the tool's actual contribution. Schools, courses and journals can require different wording, records and placement; no general template replaces those requirements.

Resolve permission, disclosure and citation separately

First establish whether the use was allowed. Next establish whether and how it must be disclosed. Finally, determine which borrowed words, ideas, data, images or other material require citations. These responsibilities overlap, but none substitutes for another.

A disclosure cannot authorize a prohibited use. Nor does it replace references to the evidence behind a claim. The Naval Postgraduate School's citation and disclosure guidance distinguishes these obligations. For a wider check of permitted assistance, verification and authorship, use the responsible student editing workflow.

Find the instruction that applies to this task

Read the assignment and syllabus, then relevant department or institutional guidance. Ask the instructor when requirements remain unclear. A rule for another course, or even another task in the same course, may differ. Princeton's student disclosure guidance is one example of a university explaining disclosure within its own academic-integrity framework.

Check whether generative AI is allowed at all and whether permission distinguishes proofreading from drafting. Find out whether advance approval is required; whether you must provide a statement, citation, appendix or prompt log; and whether wording or placement is prescribed. Also check restrictions on private, unpublished or confidential inputs.

Save the instruction you relied on as a dated note, link or screenshot. This gives you a reliable reference if instructions later change. A general university webpage is useful context, but it may not answer the narrower assignment question.

Keep the record while you work

A brief running log is easier to maintain than a reconstruction on submission day. Record meaningful uses as they happen.

The University of Auckland's student guidance asks for information about tools, purposes, prompts, evaluation and integration. A compact log gives you the raw material for that kind of account.

Avoid duplicating sensitive details in the log. Describe the task safely. If full prompts and responses are required, retain them in the approved location rather than posting them publicly. A record should explain your process without creating an additional disclosure problem.

Build the statement from five details

Identify the tool. Give the product and available model or version. Include the date when required or useful for identifying a changing service. Do not guess a model name that the interface did not show.

Describe its task. ‘Suggested grammar changes in the conclusion’ communicates more than ‘helped with the paper.’ Other roles might include offering topic options, proposing an outline or explaining a code error.

Locate its influence. Say whether it affected an initial outline, two paragraphs, a cleaning function or a language pass across the full draft. Do not minimize a contribution that shaped the argument.

Name your checks. Explain what you verified, tested, rejected or rewrote. Comparing claims with original sources and restoring technical qualifiers conveys more than ‘I reviewed it.’ The fact-checking workflow can help make that review concrete.

State responsibility accurately. Identify the decisions and final work for which you are accountable. Say the source selection or analysis is yours only if that accurately describes the process. The CDC's considerations for disclosure in scientific work likewise emphasizes affected content, the tool's purpose and human oversight.

Match the explanation to the contribution

For a language edit, describe the limited task and your review of the suggestions. A grammar and style review still needs a check that technical meaning and qualifications survived. Compare the revision with the original argument and notes; the meaning-preservation guide offers a method.

For brainstorming or outlining, identify the options generated and how you selected, changed or rejected them. An outline that shaped the final argument had an effect even if none of its sentences appeared in the submission.

Generated prose, analysis, code or media generally needs a fuller explanation of the affected sections and validation, subject to the relevant policy. For code, state the tests you performed. For factual prose, explain source verification. Images and data may involve additional rights or authorship requirements. Describe checks that actually occurred, rather than checks a template recommends.

Put the disclosure where it is required

The correct place might be an end note, footnote, appendix, acknowledgment, cover sheet, methods section or submission form. Follow the instruction precisely. A bibliography entry in an unrelated place does not reliably satisfy a separate disclosure requirement.

If no location is given, ask the instructor or editor. Where that is impossible, use a clearly labeled note readers can locate. Retain any required prompt or output record as well; a short statement may be only one part of the submission requirement.

Adapt wording to your actual process

The following are illustrative patterns. Brackets mark details to supply, and every statement about your contribution must be true.

Too vague: ‘I used AI to help with this assignment.’ This identifies neither the product nor its influence or review.

Language editing: ‘On [date], I used [tool and version] to suggest grammar and clarity edits across the final draft. I checked each suggestion, rejected changes to technical meaning, and compared the claims and references with their original sources. I take responsibility for the argument, evidence selection and final wording.’

Brainstorming: ‘Before drafting, I used [tool and version] to propose research questions and outline structures. I chose and substantially revised an outline, wrote from the assigned sources and used no generated citations. The source analysis and final text are my own.’

Code assistance: ‘I used [tool and version] to suggest an approach to the data-cleaning function in Appendix A. I rewrote its output, tested the function against the documented cases and manually reviewed the transformed data. I completed the interpretation and analysis.’

Do not copy a claim that you tested code or checked every citation unless you did so. Compare your statement with the running log and correct either omissions or overstatements. Specificity helps because the account can be checked.

Understand what the statement cannot repair

Disclosure cannot make forbidden assistance acceptable, verify a false claim, authorize confidential uploads or replace attribution for borrowed material. It cannot demonstrate understanding of work you cannot explain, and it cannot transfer responsibility to a tool. If your use conflicted with a rule, speak with the instructor or editor instead of trying to solve that conflict through wording.

Before submission, recheck the task-specific rule, tool details, purpose, affected material and human checks. Keep source citations distinct from the disclosure, place the note correctly, retain required records and remove private material from inappropriate systems. The finished account can be brief. What matters is that it truthfully explains the assistance and your decisions.