Writers of technical documentation: what to do when you are accused of using AI

A reviewer believes technical writing or documentation was generated.

What is at stake

Internal credibility, and increasingly, compliance questions about provenance.

Your evidence position

The strongest technical trail there is: git commit history with timestamps, pull request discussion, issue threads, and review comments. Commits can be cryptographically signed.

Do this first

Point at the commit history. It is a timestamped, attributable, hard-to-fake record of the work being built incrementally.

The trap

Assuming non-technical readers will read a git log. Summarise it rather than linking to it.

Related pages that will help

Writers of technical documentation disputes usually turn on the same few things: what a detector actually claims about its own accuracy, which pieces of evidence survive scrutiny, and whether a contract put the risk on you. The pages below cover each.