Track changes after editorial review of AI text

When to use this guide

A reviewed article gains a new AI-generated section during formatting, but the original approval remains attached to the whole page.

This is a fictional implementation scenario. The procedure below is Article 50 Hub's suggested working method, not a prescribed legal form, a customer result or a claim that every step is an additional statutory requirement.

Review procedure

1. Preserve the exact content version that received substantive review.

2. Compare subsequent edits and identify changes to facts, meaning or recommendations.

3. Route material changes through the appropriate review process.

4. Record the final approved version and verify it against the published page.

What the example review finds

• The new section was never reviewed.

• The approval record refers to an earlier content hash or revision.

Keep these example observations separate from your own results. An unknown or untested state should stay open until the relevant evidence has been inspected.

Fields for your working record

• Approved version

• Later edit

• Materiality decision

• New review

• Published version

Use the downloadable blank worksheet linked on this page to connect the observed behavior with the deployed system. Add a reviewer, date, evidence reference, unresolved questions and a next action. The worksheet is editable locally and does not upload your records to Article 50 Hub.

Completion and handoff

Close the task only for the scope actually reviewed. Preserve the result that another authorized reviewer can reproduce, identify the owner of remaining work, and record a retest when the implementation changes. A completed worksheet is not a substitute for the underlying evidence.

Decision boundary

This workflow does not define a universal materiality threshold or guarantee an editorial exception applies.

The official references below provide legal or technical context. Resolve applicability and exception questions with the responsible qualified reviewer; use the product's tools to organize implementation work within that assessment.