AI writing trust policy
Use ClearText to turn AI-writing risk into a fair review process. This guide helps teams, schools, and publishers define what AI tools can be used for, how detector signals should be interpreted, and when humans must make the final call.
A useful policy should separate acceptable writing support from prohibited substitution. Grammar help, brainstorming, and formatting may be allowed in some contexts, while undisclosed full-draft generation may require review or disclosure.
AI detectors are probabilistic and can be wrong. A responsible policy states that detector output is a triage signal, not proof of misconduct, fraud, or policy violation.
When a draft looks risky, ask for context: notes, sources, revision history, oral explanation, assignment fit, or editorial brief. ClearText can help identify which sections need discussion without replacing human judgment.
Policy area
Responsible approach
Risky approach
Detector score
Use as a review signal
Treat as proof
Author response
Allow context, drafts, and appeal
Skip explanation
Revision
Ask for clearer evidence and voice
Demand detector evasion
Create fair AI writing review and appeal rules.
Define draft QA without accusing writers from one score.
Set client-facing AI disclosure and review expectations.
It can, but many teams get better results by defining allowed assistance, disclosure rules, and review steps.
Yes, but only as one signal alongside human review and process evidence.
Review the text, ask for context, document the decision, and provide a fair path to revise or appeal.
This page provides a practical template and review workflow, but legal or institutional policy should be approved by the responsible organization.