Maintain an editorial responsibility register

When to use this guide

A publisher lists editorial team as responsible, but no one can identify who can approve, change or reject an AI-assisted article.

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. Identify the publication and the entity responsible for its editorial decisions.

2. Document the authority to approve, alter or reject substantive content.

3. Connect individual review actions to that authority and the relevant content versions.

4. Keep changes in responsibility dated and reviewable.

What the example review finds

• The named team has no documented publication authority.

• A contractor's review is not connected to the responsible publisher.

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

• Publication

• Responsible entity

• Decision authority

• Review action

• Effective date

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

A register documents facts and process; it does not create legal responsibility or establish an exception by naming someone.

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.