AI Act transparency for a public-interest construction report: review before publication

What the source actually says

The Commission's Article 50 guidance applies from 2 August 2026 and identifies AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest without human review or editorial control as a transparency case. This page does not turn that source into an automatic conclusion; it translates the verified boundary into a construction workflow that can still stop on uncertainty.

The practical value comes from applying the boundary consistently to every relevant person, document and project rather than remembering it only when an exception appears.

Data to capture before action

The primary source makes several boundaries explicit: 1. interactive AI disclosure and public-interest text are separate transparency duties; 2. the guidance discusses practical examples and exceptions such as standard editing; 3. deployers and providers have different roles; 4. a human approval should be substantive and traceable. Keep the official page with the operational rule so a later reviewer can see which wording and date supported the decision.

Record both the source value and the normalised value used by the workflow. Preserve later corrections as additions so the original evidence remains understandable.

A usable decision route

Turn the rule into a repeatable sequence: 1. classify the audience and publication purpose; 2. keep source evidence beside generated claims; 3. assign an accountable reviewer; 4. record corrections, disclosure decision and final publisher. Give every step an owner, a timestamp and the relevant project or counterparty, rather than storing only the final status.

Before any external message, payment, status change or import, show the affected entity, amounts, dates and consequences. Require a fresh confirmation when those inputs change.

Where the workflow can fail

The most important failures appear when context or timing is lost: 1. treating every internal progress note as public-interest publication; 2. adding a label instead of checking accuracy; 3. publishing safety or disruption claims without source ownership. Use a visible exception state instead of guessing. A blocked item should explain what evidence is missing and who can resolve it.

Test at least one normal case, one ambiguous case and one late correction. The safe outcome for missing evidence is a question or escalation, not a confident default.

Control and ownership

Assign one authorised owner, keep the source, date, inputs and decision in one record, and send exceptions to a qualified adviser. Software can structure evidence, but it does not replace legal, tax or employment advice. A provider document describes that provider; it does not prove which model Alfie uses. Review the product, account, endpoint and contract separately.

Review the procedure when the official source, contract, channel or product capability changes. Track prevented errors as well as speed so governance produces visible value.

Official or primary guidance: Official or primary guidance.

Explore Enfin, review pricing, or discuss your workflow.