Why we need a rubric at all

In creative communities, similarity happens. Sometimes because ideas are universal. Sometimes because people learn from each other. And sometimes because AI makes it too easy to repackage a structure until it looks “new.”

The Atelier doesn’t run on paranoia. We run on clarity.

So here is our simple three-tier rubric. It’s designed to do two things at once:

• protect originators from being erased
• protect good-faith builders from being accused unfairly

The Three Tiers

Tier 1: Inspiration

Inspiration is when you take a general idea and make something meaningfully your own.

What it looks like:

• You did not reuse the same section structure line-for-line.
• Your ordering, categories, and logic differ substantially.
• Your system behaves differently in practice (not just in wording).
• You can clearly describe what is new about your approach.

Credit expectation: Optional but encouraged.
Best practice credit line: “Inspired by [source].”

Example (Person A → Person B)

Person A shares a continuity template with tone modes and reset cues.
Person B builds a different system: a daily check-in method with entirely different sections and a unique workflow. It’s influenced by the concept, but not structurally the same.

Tier 2: Derivative

Derivative is when you build on an existing structure in a recognisable way.

What it looks like:

• The sections match closely, even if renamed.
• The ordering is similar.
• The same core concepts appear in the same places.
• Someone familiar with the original can recognise the “skeleton.”

Credit expectation: Required.
Best practice credit line: “Based on [source], adapted with changes.”

Example (Person A → Person B)

Person A shares a framework with Identity, Boundaries, Modes, Anchors, and Drift Repair.
Person B publishes an “8-module system” that covers the same functions in the same order, but with new labels. That is derivative, not merely inspired.

Tier 3: Lift (Repackage)

Lift (or “repackage”) is when an existing structure is taken, reworded, and presented as original—without provenance.

What it looks like:

• Structure matches strongly, but credit is missing.
• Renaming is used to hide lineage rather than clarify it.
• The public story implies: “I discovered this” or “we pioneered this.”
• Questions about provenance are dodged, minimized, or ignored.
• Publication timing suggests borrowing rather than parallel discovery.

Credit expectation: Non-negotiable.
Best practice (if discovered later): publish an update acknowledging the source and clarifying what was adapted.

Example (Person A → Person C)

Person A posts a template publicly with explicit sections and rules.
Person C feeds it into an AI, asks it to “turn this into a framework,” then publishes it as a new discovery without naming Person A. That is lift/repackage—even if the writing is different.

A note about AI (because this is where people get confused)

AI makes it effortless to change the surface of a document:

• rewrite tone
• rename headings
• reorder sections
• add “module language”
• polish it into something publishable

But changing the surface does not erase the underlying structure.

If the functions are the same, and the skeleton is the same, it’s derivative.
“My AI reframed it” is not a provenance shield. It’s usually just proof of how easy repackaging has become.

How to handle it if you realise you derived something after the fact

This happens. Especially when you’ve been learning from many sources at once.

Here’s the clean repair:

1. Update your post/page: add a credit line with a link back.
2. State what you changed (even 3 bullets is enough).
3. Keep the credit permanent. Don’t “credit for a week then remove it.”

Repair matters more than perfection.

The Atelier standard (short version)

If you build on something you learned here:

1. Name it.
2. Link back.
3. Say what you changed.

That’s not bureaucracy. That’s respect that scales.

What comes next

In the next post, we’ll introduce the simplest conflict-resolution tool we have:

The Date Test — a way to resolve “similarity” questions without dogpiles, without accusations, and without vibes.

Next: The Date Test — Resolve Similarity Without Drama.