The Co-Creation Checklist

Use it before publishing, sharing, selling, teaching, or presenting AI-assisted work.
It helps you answer one core question:
Did I actually co-create this — or did I outsource it and call it mine?

1) What This Checklist Is For

AI-assisted creative work can be ethical, original, and deeply human.
It can also become careless very quickly when creators skip authorship discipline.

This checklist helps you:

• protect your role as the authorial center
• reduce derivative risk
• avoid raw-output publishing habits
• credit frameworks, collaborators, and inspiration clearly
• build a process you could explain publicly without panic

In Atelier culture, this is not about performance.
It is about craft integrity.

2) How to Use This Resource

Use it in one of three ways:

1. Quick check (2–3 minutes): Run through the yes/no items before posting.
2. Project check (10–15 minutes): Use it at draft milestones or before submission.
3. Team standard: Adapt it into your studio or community workflow.

If you answer “No” to several core items, that is not failure.
It simply means the work may need more human shaping before publication.

3) The Core Co-Creation Test

Before the detailed checklist, start here.
If you cannot answer “yes” to most of these, pause and revise your process.

• ☐ I set the creative direction (theme, purpose, or outcome).
• ☐ I made meaningful decisions about structure, selection, and sequencing.
• ☐ I transformed the output substantially (not just cosmetic edits).
• ☐ I reviewed for originality, tone, and factual integrity where relevant.
• ☐ I approve the final version and can explain how it was made.

Co-creation is human-led shaping.
Outsourcing is human-light approval.

4) The Co-Creation Checklist (Printable Version)

Mark each item: Yes / Needs Work / Not Applicable

A. Intention & Direction (Authorship Center)

• ☐ I began with my own concept, goal, question, or brief.
• ☐ I defined the purpose of the piece before generating outputs.
• ☐ I decided the audience and tone (instead of letting AI decide it for me).
• ☐ I can clearly state what part of the work is my original contribution.
• ☐ The final message reflects my judgment, not just model fluency.

B. Creative Development (Human Shaping)

• ☐ I selected what to keep, discard, combine, or rewrite.
• ☐ I changed structure, order, or framing where needed.
• ☐ I rewrote key passages in my own voice (especially prose/dialogue/claims).
• ☐ I refined wording for accuracy, nuance, and tone.
• ☐ I did not publish large raw outputs untouched.

C. Originality & Derivative Risk

• ☐ I did not ask AI to imitate a living creator’s exact style/voice.
• ☐ I checked for overly familiar phrasing, structure, or suspicious resemblance.
• ☐ I removed or reworked anything that felt too derivative.
• ☐ I am not presenting someone else’s framework, method, or wording as my own.
• ☐ If inspired by another creator, I can name the inspiration honestly.

D. Rights, Credit & Provenance

• ☐ I know what parts are mine to claim (concept, structure, edits, final form, etc.).
• ☐ I am not overstating my role (“AI wrote it for me” / “I barely changed it”).
• ☐ I have credited collaborators, frameworks, or source inspiration where appropriate.
• ☐ I have dates, drafts, or process notes for important work (if needed later).
• ☐ I could defend my process publicly without inventing a cleaner story after the fact.

E. Disclosure (When Relevant)

• ☐ I checked whether disclosure is required (publisher, client, contest, platform, employer).
• ☐ If disclosure is needed, I can describe the process accurately and professionally.
• ☐ My disclosure reflects human-led authorship and AI-assisted support.
• ☐ I am not using disclosure as a shield for low-effort or derivative work.

F. Integrity & Community Standard

• ☐ This work aligns with my own ethics, not just what is technically possible.
• ☐ I am not hiding shortcuts that would mislead my audience about my process.
• ☐ I would be comfortable teaching this workflow to a beginner.
• ☐ I would be comfortable if a peer reviewed my draft history/process notes.
• ☐ I am publishing this as a creator, not as a collector of generated output.

5) Red Flag Scan (Pause Before You Publish)

If any of the following are true, pause and revise before posting:

• ☐ “I mostly just generated until something sounded good enough.”
• ☐ “I used a prompt to make it sound exactly like another writer/creator.”
• ☐ “I cannot explain what I actually contributed beyond prompts.”
• ☐ “I copied wording/framework language too closely and hoped no one would notice.”
• ☐ “I am calling it co-creation, but I did not meaningfully shape the final work.”
• ☐ “I am afraid to describe the process honestly because it sounds weaker than my claims.”

Red flags do not mean “throw the project away.”
They mean: slow down, rework, and re-center the human hand.

6) A Simple Scoring Method (Optional)

If you want a fast self-audit, score each section from 0–2:

• 0 = not done / unclear
• 1 = partially done
• 2 = clearly done and defensible

Score sections A–F, then total them.

• 10–12: needs substantial human revision before publishing
• 13–18: workable, but tighten authorship and originality checks
• 19–24: strong human-led co-creation workflow

This is not a legal test.
It is a process quality test.

7) Printable Pre-Publish Review Sheet

Project / Piece Title: ________________________________

Date: ________________________________

Creator: ________________________________

Intended Use: ☐ Personal ☐ Public Post ☐ Client Work ☐ Submission ☐ Commercial

Process Summary (1–3 lines)

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

AI Assisted With (check all that apply)

• ☐ brainstorming
• ☐ outlining / structure
• ☐ revision support
• ☐ proofreading / cleanup
• ☐ analysis / critique
• ☐ research support (must verify separately)
• ☐ ideation alternatives
• ☐ other: __________________________

Human-Led Contributions (must be specific)

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Final Check Before Publishing

• ☐ I reviewed for originality
• ☐ I reviewed for tone/voice consistency
• ☐ I reviewed for factual accuracy (if applicable)
• ☐ I reviewed for credit/provenance needs
• ☐ I reviewed disclosure requirements (if applicable)
• ☐ I approve the final version as my responsibility

8) Suggested Disclosure Lines (If Needed)

If a publisher, client, contest, or platform requires disclosure, use language that is clear and professional.
You do not need to overconfess.
You need to describe your process accurately.

General (neutral)

This work was developed through a human-led creative process with AI assistance for brainstorming, structural iteration, and editorial support. All creative direction, key decisions, and final content were authored and approved by the creator.

Writing-focused

AI was used as a support tool during drafting and revision (idea exploration, structural refinement, and editing assistance). Story concept, voice, narrative decisions, and final text are the author’s own.

Framework / educational content

This resource was created through a human-led process using AI for drafting support and clarity refinement. The framework, teaching approach, and final editorial decisions are original to the author unless otherwise credited.

9) Credit Prompts (For Creators Who Want to Be Clear)

If your work builds on someone else’s framework, method, or inspiration, clear credit protects trust.
Here are simple prompts you can use before publishing:

• ☐ Did I borrow a framework structure, naming scheme, or teaching sequence?
• ☐ Did someone’s public post/thread/tutorial directly shape this piece?
• ☐ Did I adapt a community method that should be acknowledged?
• ☐ Am I using “inspired by” when this is actually an adaptation?
• ☐ Would a reasonable reader understand where this came from?

If the answer raises doubt, add a credit line.
Clarity is cheaper than cleanup.

10) Atelier Standard (Why This Matters)

In Atelier culture, provenance is not a witch-hunt.
It is a craft ethic.

We care about:

• process transparency (without oversharing private drafts)
• human authorship (the hand stays visible)
• credit etiquette (frameworks, inspiration, collaborators)
• derivative awareness (especially in the AI era)
• co-creation integrity (real shaping, not cosmetic approval)

A strong creative culture does not fear tools.
It teaches people how to use them responsibly.

Use the tool.
Keep the hand.
Credit the path.
Protect the work.

11) Copy / Print Notes (Optional for Readers)

You may copy this checklist for personal studio use, team workflows, or classroom/community discussions,
provided attribution is kept intact and the resource is not reposted as original authorship.

If you adapt it, note what you changed.
That helps preserve provenance and makes your version more useful to others.