Reconcile Discarded AI Drafts With the Final Content Record

Reconcile the final manuscript and artwork with the project’s content-origin record. Mark discarded drafts as unused, but trace any material copied or adapted from them into the finished book. Base the publication review on the actual creation process and final assets, using current KDP definitions rather than the names of folders or files.

Separate project history from publication contents

A project may contain generated outlines, experimental passages, rejected covers, and alternative translations that never enter the book. Keep enough history to explain the workflow, but distinguish that archive from the files prepared for publication. An undifferentiated folder of outputs makes it difficult to tell which materials the final content-origin review needs to examine.

Create a simple status record for each relevant draft or asset: retained, replaced, rejected, or unresolved. Link retained material to its location in the working manuscript or artwork set. For rejected material, record what replaced it when that is known. This is an internal production aid, not a special KDP form. Its purpose is to help the author make an accurate review without reconstructing months of decisions from filenames.

Trace fragments that survived a rejected draft

A draft can be rejected as a whole while individual sentences, examples, or visual elements survive elsewhere. Inspect the transition from the rejected version to the accepted one. If a passage was copied and revised, record that relationship. If the author used only an idea and independently created the final expression, describe the actual process rather than assigning a category from the word “rejected.”

For example, an author may discard a generated chapter but keep its opening example in a later rewrite. The archive status of the chapter does not explain the origin of that retained example. Conversely, a generated image saved during brainstorming may never appear in the publication files. The review should distinguish these cases using the manuscript history and asset records, not assume that every saved output was published or that every rejected file left no trace.

Apply the current definitions to the real workflow

KDP’s content guidance, reviewed on September 21, 2026, distinguishes AI-generated content from AI-assisted work. It treats content created by an AI tool as generated even when substantial edits follow. It also describes brainstorming followed by the author’s own creation, and improvement of author-created content, as assisted. Consult the current wording during the publication review and document facts that help apply those distinctions.

Do not use a percentage of changed words as a substitute for the creation history. Nor should an author assume that moving text into a fresh document changes its origin. Where the process is uncertain, keep the item unresolved and investigate the available drafts or contributor notes. A confident label without evidence is less useful than a clear question tied to a specific passage or asset.

Reconcile each publication asset separately

Review text, cover artwork, interior images, and translations as applicable to the project. A book can have different creation histories across those components. Confirm that the image selected for export is the reviewed final asset rather than a visually similar experiment. Record replacements explicitly, especially when several versions share a descriptive name or appear together in the design application.

Check captions and other accompanying text as well. Replacing a generated illustration does not necessarily replace a generated explanation that was created with it. Likewise, an author-written chapter may contain a separately generated translation or passage. Keep the record detailed enough to identify those relationships without turning it into a transcript of every harmless editing action. The necessary detail is whatever allows the final material’s origin to be understood.

Close the record against the actual final package

Before submission, compare the content-origin record with the exported manuscript and selected artwork. Resolve entries marked retained that no longer appear, and investigate published material with no recorded origin. Save the review with the version of the package it describes. A later substitution can require another check even when the replacement has the same dimensions or occupies the same paragraph location.

Keep the archived drafts separate from the publication handoff so unused experiments are not accidentally selected. Preserve the record for future revisions, since old material may be reintroduced later. The outcome should be a clear account of what the book contains and how that material was created. It supports the publication review but does not replace the author’s responsibility to verify accuracy, permissions, and the applicable content requirements.