AI Act disclosure for a synthetic construction photo shown to a client

A synthetic renovation image can help a client discuss options, but it can also be mistaken for a real site photo, completed detail or measured design. The risk is not solved by adding “AI” somewhere in a footer. The disclosure must reach the viewer when the image is first presented and remain attached when it is reused.

Start with the current official rule

The European Commission's Article 50 transparency guidelines explain obligations applying from 2 August 2026 for certain AI-generated or manipulated content. Scope depends on the system, content and use. Use the current guideline and legal review for the exact case; do not label every edited construction image a deepfake or assume that a generic disclaimer covers all channels.

Turn the rule into a bounded decision

Classify the asset as site evidence, design visualisation, marketing content or internal draft. If it is synthetic or materially manipulated, state that clearly next to the image and describe what is illustrative. Keep dimensions, specifications and contractual promises in verified documents. A client approval of a concept does not turn generated pixels into an as-built record.

Build an auditable workflow

Store the source files, generation or edit date, purpose, reviewer and approved caption. Require human review before email, proposal or project-message use. When the image moves to another document, carry the disclosure with it. Remove obsolete drafts so a later project team cannot mistake them for photographic evidence.

Handle exceptions explicitly

Test the workflow with a realistic exception: a missing company identifier, duplicate record, unclear role or temporarily unavailable source. The process should stop with a focused question. Keep the source, review date, owner and decision without copying more personal data than needed. Escalate legal, tax, labour or safety uncertainty to the competent person.

Repeat the check when a payment, party, invoice action, site arrangement or official instruction changes. An earlier result is context, not automatic permission for the next action. Define who can reverse an error, notify affected people and decide that the exception is genuinely closed.

Make the status readable to someone who did not prepare the record. That person should find the checked input, consulted source, remaining uncertainty and next permitted action. Avoid relying on a free-text note as the only evidence. Use stable fields for identity, date, outcome and owner, then add only the explanation needed for the exception.

Connect context to controlled execution

Enfin can connect the customer, supplier, project, document, task and invoice in one record. Alfie can prepare information and propose a governed action within available permissions; the official service and competent owner remain responsible for the decision. Explore Enfin, review pricing, or discuss your workflow.