Skip to content

AI Companion Content Standard

Scope

This standard applies whenever a product includes AI-generated companion content shipped to the customer — for example, a bundled AI prompt pack, AI-assisted guidance text embedded in a workbook, or an AI-generated explanation of how to use a feature. It does not apply to AI assistance used only during internal development (that's governed by ../ai/guardrails.md and the root AI operating contracts); it applies to content that reaches the customer.

Requirements

Must be labeled as AI-assisted

Any customer-facing content that was generated or substantially drafted by AI must be disclosed as such. This can be a simple, honest label (e.g., "This guide was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by our team") rather than an elaborate disclaimer, but it must not be omitted or obscured.

Must be reviewed by a human before shipping

No AI-generated companion content ships to a customer without a human review pass specifically checking for accuracy, appropriateness, and tone. AI-generated content is a draft, not a finished deliverable, until a human has reviewed it.

Must not present AI output as guaranteed-accurate advice in high-risk domains

In finance, tax, legal, or health-adjacent domains, AI-generated companion content must not be framed as guaranteed-accurate or as personalized advice. It should be framed as general/educational information, consistent with financial-product-guardrails.md for finance-related products, and should direct customers to a qualified professional for guidance specific to their situation.

Practical guidance

  • Where an AI prompt pack is itself the product (e.g., a set of prompts for a customer to use with their own AI tool), the pack should be tested by actually running the prompts, not shipped on the assumption that they'll produce a good result.
  • Companion content should be reviewed against the same accuracy bar as any other product content — "an AI wrote it" is not an excuse for lower quality or lower scrutiny; if anything, it warrants closer review given the added uncertainty.

Report an issue about this page