skills/crypto-ai-acknowledgements/references/drafting-patterns.md

# Drafting patterns

These are original, adaptable patterns based on the supplied review, not quotations or official venue language. Brackets denote facts to supply, not claims to assume. Use only clauses that match the authors' account, including any claim about human review. Combine patterns for mixed use. Do not add a negative claim about other AI use unless it is established.

## Editing and proofreading

> **AI assistance.** We used [tool; model/version if known] for language editing and proofreading of [scope]. [The authors / specified authors] reviewed the suggested changes.

Use only for the disclosed editorial role. If a system also supplied proof ideas, substantial drafts, code, or analysis, describe those contributions too. A simple editorial disclosure can be one sentence; it need not acquire a research-style contribution map.

## Implementation or experiments

> **AI assistance.** We used [tool/model] to assist with [specific implementation, benchmark-harness, testing, analysis, or plotting tasks] for [section or artifact]. [Specified authors] reviewed [scope of code] and checked [reported outputs] using [checks actually performed].

Distinguish generating tests from passing them, reviewing code from reproducing experiments, and functional correctness from a security proof. For MPC or proof-system work, identify whether assistance concerned the protocol or prover/verifier implementation, experimental method, or interpretation when that distinction changes the credit. Add writing assistance only if it occurred.

## Research contributions and mixed use

> **Statement on AI use.** [Tool/model] [suggested/developed/generated] [specific construction, proof idea, lemma, or optimization] during [relevant interaction, if useful]. The authors [specified the problem, refined the construction, corrected the argument, or extended the result, as applicable]. We also used [tool/model] for [other actual drafting, coding, or editorial tasks]. [Specified authors] checked [particular arguments, computations, or references] through [actual process, if useful].

Choose attribution verbs from the actual history. If the central idea was generated by the system, say so directly; if it helped express an existing human argument, say that instead. Refer to the affected theorem, lemma, section, or figure when it makes the statement shorter and more informative. Do not turn “we checked Lemma 2” into “all authors verified all proofs.”

## Formalization

> **AI assistance.** We used [tool/model] to assist in generating [proof-assistant code or formalization] for [exact statements]. [Specified authors] [reviewed the code / ran the checker / checked correspondence with the paper, as applicable]. The [checked development / draft formalization] covers [scope] under [relevant assumptions]; [material exclusions] remain outside it.

“Machine-checked” requires an actual successful check of the stated development. Coverage and correspondence with the paper are separate matters; generating code alone establishes neither. If formalization details already appear nearby, cross-reference them instead of repeating a lengthy scope statement.

## Optional responsibility clause

> The authors take responsibility for [the paper's claims and presentation / the implementation and reported results / other agreed scope].

Use when it reflects the authors' position, or label it outside the paragraph as proposed for their adoption. It is not evidence of verification and does not replace missing contribution details. Keep any required venue wording faithful to the current official policy.