VerifiedHuman for writers

A reader may care that a person thought through an argument, found the right words, or wrote from lived experience. The VerifiedHuman mark helps that reader recognize your human authorship. Start with the Standard for Writers and its definitions.

Your commitment

I represent my written work as my (or my team's) intellectual property, essentially authored by (a) human(s) and not by generative AI.

The central question is: Who put the words together?

Where AI can help

AI can support research, outlining, brainstorming, and citation formatting. It can also improve the clarity, grammar, and flow of your own writing when your ideas, meaning, and voice remain yours. Review the changes and take responsibility for the result.

That is different from having AI write a draft from a prompt or outline. At VH3, generated material needs substantial reauthoring in your own voice. Small edits and synonym swaps are not enough.

The Five-Word Principle is a reason to pause over wording carried unchanged from an AI draft. It is a gut-check, not a pass-or-fail count. The definitions explain how it applies.

Translation and quotation

A human-written original can retain its qualification through AI translation when that use is clearly disclosed. A simple note is: “Human-written original. Translated with AI.”

Clearly attribute generated passages you quote. The surrounding work must still meet the standard.

Use the mark with care

Use it on writing that meets the standard: a book, article, poem, script, or other work. Membership does not certify everything you write.

Human editors and collaborators are welcome. Credit their roles and explain meaningful AI contributions. The mark should help readers understand the work you made.

Can I use AI to edit my own draft?

AI assistance can fit when your ideas, meaning, and voice remain yours. For example, asking a tool to flag unclear sentences in a draft you wrote is different from asking it to produce the article. Review its suggestions, decide what to accept, and take responsibility for the final writing. The current definitions for writers govern the boundary.

What if I begin with an AI-generated draft?

At VH3, generated material needs substantial reauthoring in your own voice. A light polish, synonym replacement, or a chosen percentage of changed words does not establish human authorship. Ask whether you actually composed the writing you are presenting as yours. Return to the field definitions when a case is uncertain.

Does a self-assessment score qualify my writing?

No. A reflection tool can help you examine your process, but its score does not independently prove authorship or grant use of the mark. Your work must meet the current Standard for Writers, and you must agree to follow that standard.

How can I explain my process to readers?

Describe what you wrote and what the tool did. For example: “I wrote the article. I used AI to flag grammar problems and reviewed each suggested change.” Use that wording only when it accurately describes your work. If AI translated a human-written original, disclose that translation.

Keep useful drafts and notes where practical. They may help explain your process if someone asks. The authorship guide offers examples, and the comparison with AI detection explains what the commitment does and does not establish.

How do I join?

Read the Standard for Writers, make your commitment, and use the mark on writing that qualifies. Joining is free and giving is optional. Membership does not automatically qualify every piece you publish.

Worked example: editing a draft you wrote

Imagine a writer who interviews a subject and writes an article. They ask AI to flag unclear sentences and grammar problems, review each suggestion, and keep control of the ideas, meaning, and voice. This illustrates the permitted editorial assistance described at VH4. The writer supplied the original writing. Having a tool generate a passage from a prompt is assessed separately under VH3.

An accurate process note might be: “I wrote the article and used AI to suggest grammar and clarity edits. I reviewed the suggestions and chose the final wording.” Use that note only if it describes what happened. Read the editorial assistance definitions.

Worked example: polishing an AI draft

Imagine someone asks AI to draft an article, replaces a few words, and publishes it as their own writing. Those small edits do not meet the substantial reauthoring required at VH3. A low detector score or a particular percentage of changed words would not change that requirement.

If the writer develops the ideas, rethinks the structure, and substantially reauthors the expression in their own voice, assess the resulting work against the current definitions. The example does not grant qualification by itself. The Five-Word Principle is a prompt to examine carried-over expression, not a pass-or-fail count.

Worked example: translating a human-written original

Imagine an author writes an essay and uses AI to translate it for readers in another language. Under the translation guidance, the human-written original retains its qualification when AI translation is clearly disclosed. A process note could read: “Human-written original. Translated with AI.”

Identify the translated version’s use of AI. Translation does not make an AI-authored original human-written. These are hypothetical illustrations of the existing standard; the field definitions govern actual work.