When a contributor cannot explain whether supplied text or artwork was AI-generated, mark its origin as unresolved and investigate the creation process before using it in a publication-ready package. Ask about the actual material you received, including later replacements. Do not infer its origin from writing style, visual polish, or an automated detector score.
Identify the exact material whose origin is uncertain
Start with an inventory of the delivered assets. A handoff may contain human-written chapters, generated illustrations, edited captions, and a translation produced by a different person. Treating the entire folder as one undifferentiated contribution makes it harder to ask useful questions.
Give each uncertain item a stable name and record the version being reviewed. Include its location in the manuscript or artwork plan. If a contributor sends a replacement later, retain the relationship between the old and new items so a resolved question does not accidentally get applied to a different file.
Ask about creation steps rather than labels
A broad question such as "Was this AI-assisted?" can produce an answer based on the contributor's own definition. Ask who first produced the text or image, which tools were used, and what changed afterward. For translations, ask about the translated wording itself rather than only the original manuscript.
Use a concrete example from the handoff. If an illustration began as a generated image and was then repainted, record that sequence. If a person wrote a paragraph and used a tool to suggest clearer phrasing, record that sequence separately. Specific accounts are more informative than a general assurance that the work was heavily edited.
Request proportionate supporting records
Useful evidence may include dated drafts, source files, revision history, or a contributor's written explanation of the workflow. Ask for records relevant to the disputed assets rather than requesting unrelated private account data. The purpose is to understand the creation path well enough to make an accurate publication decision.
Evidence can remain incomplete. A missing early draft does not prove generation, and a polished editable file does not prove human origin. Record what the available material establishes and what it leaves uncertain. If two contributors give conflicting accounts, keep that conflict visible until it is resolved.
Apply the platform distinction to the final content
KDP distinguishes AI-generated content from AI-assisted work and requires disclosure of generated text, images, or translations. Substantial editing after generation does not by itself make the underlying material exempt from that generated-content treatment. Apply the current guidance to the creation process you established, not to a preferred marketing description.
Keep this classification separate from quality and rights review. Accurate disclosure does not establish that a quotation is correct, an image can be used, or a chapter serves its readers. The publisher remains responsible for the submitted content, so each of those questions needs its own answer.
Resolve uncertainty through a deliberate replacement decision
If the origin cannot be established sufficiently, pause the affected material's path into the final package. You can request a documented replacement, commission new work with an agreed process, or remove the item and revise the surrounding manuscript. Choose an option that actually resolves the uncertainty instead of merely renaming the file.
A fresh human-written replacement should come from an independently prepared brief and a documented writing process. Asking someone to paraphrase uncertain supplied prose may leave the underlying origin question intact. Likewise, a new image needs its own creation record; changing colors or cropping the previous asset does not create a new provenance history.
Close the handoff against the files you will submit
Before final export, compare the resolved inventory with the manuscript, cover, and interior images actually selected. Confirm that removed assets have not survived in an alternate layout, thumbnail, or old export. Record the replacement decision and the identity of the final files together.
Make unresolved entries easy to see in the project checklist. A clean-looking PDF should not conceal an unanswered origin question. Once the package is consistent, retain the relevant contributor explanations and decisions with the editorial records so future revisions can use the same verified starting point.
Frequently asked questions
Clear answers for this publishing decision.
Can an AI detector settle the question?
A score does not document who created a specific asset or how it was revised. Use creation records and contributor explanations to investigate the workflow, and keep uncertainty explicit when those records are insufficient.
What if the contributor says the work is original?
Ask what that statement means for the actual workflow. Originality, permission to publish, and the use of generative tools are related but separate questions; a broad assurance may not answer all three.
Does rewriting automatically remove the need for disclosure?
Do not assume that editing or paraphrasing changes the classification of generated content. Review the current KDP distinction and document how the final material was actually produced before answering the disclosure question.
What must I check, disclose, and verify myself when AI helped produce the book?
Review facts, rights, and source material yourself, record which parts were AI-assisted or AI-generated so you can answer Amazon’s disclosure question accurately, and treat every automated check as a starting point rather than a verdict.
See what the compliance checks cover