Record AI Rewrites of Human-Written Chapters

Record what the AI tool actually did during the revision of a human-written chapter. Editing or checking existing content supplied by a person differs from creating new replacement prose under KDP's current definitions. Preserve the original passage, task description, and accepted output so the final origin review reflects the material included in the revised edition rather than only the history of the first draft.

Identify the task performed on the old chapter

Describe the request in concrete terms. Did the tool flag inconsistent terminology, suggest edits to supplied sentences, or generate a new explanation to replace several pages? A broad label such as "AI editing" can hide those differences. Keep enough of the task record to explain the actual workflow without relying on the service's marketing name for the feature or the author's general impression of how much assistance was involved.

For example, an author may ask for spelling corrections in one section and then request an entirely new worked example elsewhere. Those activities belong in separate entries even if they occur during the same session. The fact that the surrounding chapter was originally human-written does not describe the origin of every later addition. Review the accepted material at a practical level of granularity, such as a section or clearly identified replacement passage.

Preserve the before-and-after evidence

Keep the original chapter version and the output proposed by the tool before merging changes. Mark which suggestions were accepted, which were revised, and which were rejected. A comparison helps establish whether the final passage retains edited human-created content or includes newly generated material, but do not treat a percentage of changed words as a universal classification rule. The relevant production facts matter more than a visual similarity score.

If the task history is incomplete, record the uncertainty and investigate available drafts or saved outputs. Do not reconstruct origin solely from how polished the final prose sounds or from an AI detector result. Those do not show what a tool was asked to do or how a passage was created. The record should state what is known about the process and identify unresolved questions before the submission review depends on them.

Apply the current distinction without erasing later work

KDP's current content guidance distinguishes actual AI-generated text, images, and translations from assistance with material a person created. It also states that substantial editing afterward does not by itself remove a generated origin. Keep that distinction available to the person reviewing the revised edition. A note saying that the author carefully rewrote the result describes an important quality step, but it does not necessarily describe the original creation of the replacement passage.

Avoid using the amount of human effort as a substitute for the production history. An author can spend considerable time checking, restructuring, and improving generated prose while still needing to record that origin accurately. Equally, a tool that only helps identify errors in existing human text should not automatically be described as having authored the chapter. Document the actual activity rather than choosing whichever label seems more flattering to the finished book.

Reconcile the accepted content with the final manuscript

Use stable section or passage identifiers to track what remains after further revision. If a generated replacement is later removed entirely, mark that change while preserving the history. If part remains, identify the retained unit as accurately as the workflow permits. The final record should correspond to the submitted edition, not simply list every experiment that occurred during drafting as though all of it survived.

Review new images, translations, and supplementary material introduced during the same revision as separate assets. A text-focused edit can also produce a new diagram or translated appendix with its own origin. Keep permissions and source records alongside, but distinct from, the origin history. Neither a correct AI disclosure nor a careful editorial review automatically establishes every right needed to use the material in the final book.

Carry the record into the submission and future revisions

Before submission, compare the actual manuscript and asset manifest with the origin log and the current KDP question. Record the files reviewed and the date of the guidance check. Do not answer solely from the fact that the original book was written without AI or that a previous edition used a particular disclosure response. A revised edition can contain different material created through a different process.

Preserve the log with the release package so later updates begin from a reliable baseline. Future editors should be able to identify the accepted passages and relevant history without guessing which old experiments entered the book. The purpose is accurate, traceable documentation. It supports the review responsibilities of the author without claiming that origin records alone prove factual quality, originality, permission, or acceptance by the publishing platform.