Track Mixed Human and AI Prose Through a Novel Revision

Track the origin of material at the level needed to identify what remains in the final novel. Separate prose a person wrote from actual text created by AI, and record replacements as the manuscript changes. Under KDP's current guidance, substantial editing does not by itself change AI-generated content into AI-assisted content. Keep origin records separate from quality approval.

Begin with identifiable units of manuscript content

Choose a practical unit for the record, such as a scene or a clearly identified passage, rather than trying to label every ordinary word. Give the unit a stable identifier and link it to the source draft. Record who created the initial content, which tool was involved if any, and what the tool actually did. Brainstorming, editing a person's prose, and generating new narrative text are different activities.

For example, an author may write a conversation, use a tool to identify unclear pronouns, and then make the corrections personally. Elsewhere, the author may ask a tool to draft an entire arrival scene. Keep those histories distinct even if both scenes eventually receive extensive human revision. The record should explain the production process, not assign a value judgment about which scene sounds more polished or has a stronger voice.

Preserve origin when revisions become substantial

When editing generated prose, record the revision without overwriting the origin entry. KDP's definition addresses whether AI created the actual content, including material that was substantially edited afterward. A note saying "human edited" describes a later activity but does not fully describe the beginning of that passage. Both facts can be true and belong in the production history.

Avoid using style, quality, or an AI-detection score to reconstruct missing history. Those do not replace a record of what happened. If the origin of a passage is uncertain, investigate the available drafts and task records before completing the submission review. Write down what you can establish and what remains unresolved. Do not convert uncertainty into a confident claim merely because the finished prose resembles the author's usual writing.

Record replacements and removals explicitly

If a scene is deleted, mark the corresponding origin entry as removed from the current manuscript while preserving the earlier record. If the author replaces a passage, record the new version and how it was created. The final review needs to identify the material actually included in the submitted edition, while the archive should still explain how the project reached that state.

Be precise about what "replaced" means. A new heading or a few rewritten sentences do not necessarily replace the underlying generated scene. Conversely, a passage discarded entirely should not remain listed as present simply because it existed in an early draft. Use the stable scene identifiers and version comparisons to reconcile the record with the final file. Ask a qualified adviser when a specific uncertain situation requires an interpretation beyond the documented production facts.

Include material outside the main narrative

Review cover artwork, interior images, translations, and other included material as well as the story text. A novel with entirely human-written prose may still contain an AI-generated map or cover image. Keep the asset's origin record connected to the actual file placed in the edition. Replacing a cover concept with a different final image should trigger an update to the record.

Maintain permission and license information separately from origin. Recording that an asset was generated does not establish rights to every element or settle the terms under which it can be used. Keep relevant provider or supplier records and review the actual content. A correct disclosure answer and a satisfactory rights review address different questions, so neither should be treated as evidence that the other has been completed.

Reconcile the record before submission

Compare the final manuscript and asset manifest against the origin log. Confirm that each included generated unit is represented and each removed unit is marked appropriately. Record the file versions examined and the date of the current KDP guidance review. The person completing the submission should use that evidence and the actual question presented by KDP, rather than answering from memory of the earliest drafting session.

Preserve the record with the release package so a later revision can begin from reliable information. When a new scene, translation, or image is introduced, update the log before the next submission review. This process makes the publishing history traceable without pretending that documentation alone proves quality, originality, permission, or acceptance. Those remain separate responsibilities that need their own evidence and judgment.