Record the Exact Route Instead of Letting General Terms Answer for It
A claim about what platforms usually do cannot replace the route you will actually use. Define the destination completely: platform, channel or call, work type, whether you are applying for a contract, and the agreement presented in that route. Record only evidence that leads back to an official page.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Actual destination | Platform, channel or program, work type, and exact route |
| Official material | Titles and links for author rules, submission instructions, program rules, and proposed agreement |
| Time | Stated update or effective date; if none appears, the access date |
| Directly relevant text | The location of language about AI assistance, content sources, declarations, or eligibility |
| Unanswered question | The precise use the material does not cover, such as AI used only to organize an outline or generate part of a draft |
| Current status | Checked, Author decision needed, or External confirmation needed |
The evidence must match the question. A general service agreement can govern accounts and content without defining eligibility for a particular fiction-contract route. For example, the Qidian User Service Agreement checked for this article displays an update and effective date of April 28, 2024. Sections 13.4 and 15.2 concern synthetic or non-real information and content sources, but they do not provide a general answer about contract eligibility for AI-assisted novels. They support neither “eligible” nor “ineligible” as a universal conclusion.
For a real submission, continue to the current author rules and proposed agreement for that exact route. If they still do not address your use, describe it precisely, ask through an official channel, and save the response. Without a response, keep the row under External confirmation needed. That open status does not automatically become permission, prohibition, or a universal stop rule. The author makes the submission decision from the official material and explicit requirements available for the chosen route.
The Qidian page was reopened on September 30, 2026; the stated dates and referenced clauses remain present. This records what that page directly supports without using a general service agreement to decide eligibility for a specific author route.
Connect AI Inputs, Outputs, Sources, and Author Actions
The route record answers “where am I submitting, and on what official basis?” A second record answers “what did AI touch, and what can the author account for?” Log inputs, outputs, and author actions separately instead of describing the whole book as merely “AI-assisted.”
| Field | How to record it |
|---|---|
| Input ID | Assign an ID to each outline, character sheet, research item, reference excerpt, and earlier draft |
| Source and location | Name the author's own material, external page, or file; mark an unconfirmed source explicitly |
| Task given to AI | For example, organize chapter order, generate a connective passage, or revise a named paragraph |
| Output location | Identify draft version, chapter, and passage rather than writing “some content” |
| Author action | Accepted, rejected, rewritten, or still undecided; identify where the final version lives |
| Current status | Checked, Author decision needed, or External confirmation needed |
Checked means only that the record leads back to specific material and a version. It does not make a legal conclusion about sources, contracts, or eligibility. Material with an origin you cannot account for stays under External confirmation needed. A model proposal the author has not selected stays under Author decision needed. A confident explanation from AI cannot close either status.
This record is limited to AI contribution and source provenance. For character motivation, plot causality, or a general revision brief, use review and revise. For a bounded wording problem, use prose revision. To record deliberate stylistic choices, use preserving author voice. Do not rebuild those general editorial workflows inside this submission check.
The submission worksheet and three statuses are this article’s editorial record, not story-review’s native output format. That skill uses source locations and evidence for ordinary manuscript findings; it cannot invent platform rules, source permission, or a submission verdict. For a story review, provide the actual current manuscript and needed supporting material to story-review while maintaining provenance and final-file records separately.
Copyable Prompt: Audit Rules, Provenance, and File Versions Only
Replace the bracketed fields with your material. This prompt looks only for gaps in route rules, source records, and file versions. It does not review the story or announce contract eligibility.
I am checking submission materials for an AI-assisted novel. Organize evidence gaps only. Do not invent platform rules, sources, permission status, or a submission conclusion.
Actual destination: [platform, channel or program, work type, exact route]
Official-material record: [page title, link, update/effective/access date, relevant location; write “External confirmation needed” where it gives no answer]
AI-input record: [input ID, material name, source and location, task given to AI]
AI output and author action: [draft version, chapter or passage, accepted/rejected/rewritten/undecided]
Files prepared for submission: [manuscript filename, version ID or checksum, chapter count, synopsis, sample chapters, and other attachments]
Version the author actually read: [filename, version ID or checksum, completion date]
Return one audit table. Use only Checked, Author decision needed, and External confirmation needed as statuses. For each row, state the item, current evidence, what is missing, and who handles the next step. Check whether the exact route is identified; whether official material has a link and date; whether every AI input, output, and author action maps to a record; whether an unknown source remains explicitly unconfirmed; and whether the final manuscript and attachments come from the same version the author read. Do not review character, plot, or style. Do not rewrite the manuscript or decide that it can be submitted, cannot be submitted, or can receive a contract.
After receiving the table, the author completes records that can be completed, leaves choices under Author decision needed, and leaves questions requiring the platform or a source under External confirmation needed. If a general story problem appears, open the separate review workflow instead of putting it into the provenance ledger.
Original Example: The Submission Record for The Print Shop on Rain Lane
The work, platform, and records below are original fiction created for this article. They do not represent any real platform policy. Chen Rui is preparing a novel titled *The Print Shop on Rain Lane*. AI helped organize its outline and generated two connective passages. Instead of asking AI whether the novel could get signed, she placed the route, AI materials, and final files in one record.
| Record | Action |
|---|---|
| Submission route | Present evidence and action: She selects the fictional Paper Bridge Novel Call and saves its program page and access date; the page does not answer her particular AI use; Status: External confirmation needed |
| Input A-01 | Present evidence and action: Her own story outline, outline-v3; AI only organizes its existing chapter order; Status: Checked |
| Input A-02 | Present evidence and action: She pasted a paragraph from another contemporary novel as a tonal reference, without recording its exact location or basis for use here; the generated Chapter 4 transition also contains a comparison whose formation she cannot account for; Status: External confirmation needed |
| Output O-04 | Present evidence and action: She rejects the transition and rewrites from her own character sheet and scene goal; the replacement is in manuscript-v12, while the old output remains in a work record that will not be submitted; Status: Checked |
| Output O-09 | Present evidence and action: AI generated a Chapter 9 transition that Chen reviewed line by line and accepted; its input ID, first draft, and final location are recorded; Status: Checked |
| Submission attachments | Present evidence and action: The manuscript is manuscript-v12, but the synopsis was exported from v10 and still names a character later removed; Status: Author decision needed |
Chen rebuilds the synopsis from manuscript-v12, then checks the sample chapters and table of contents. The attachment row can now move to Checked. She does not make A-02 “usable” through synonym replacement. She removes the output whose formation she cannot account for and rewrites from traceable material belonging to this project. This describes her recordkeeping choice; it makes no source or rights conclusion for another author.
The program page still does not answer her specific AI use, so that row remains under External confirmation needed. She can ask the fictional program through an official channel or compare another route with clearer materials. Whether to proceed on the available evidence is her decision under the actual route's requirements. This article does not turn silence into permission, prohibition, or a universal stop rule.
O-04 is checked because rejection and rewriting have a version record. That does not also confirm A-02’s missing source material. The old input and output remain in the non-submitted work record, with their statuses kept separate.
Check the Exact Final Manuscript and Every Attachment
Check only the file set you are about to upload. Do not treat a review of an older draft as evidence about the current one. Give the final manuscript a clear version ID or checksum, and include the synopsis, sample chapters, contents, cover note, and any other attachment in the same manifest.
- Platform, channel or program, and exact route match the rule record.
- Official links and dates have been reopened; unanswered questions remain under External confirmation needed.
- Every AI input, output, and author action—accepted, rejected, or rewritten—maps to an ID and location.
- The author has read the manuscript version being uploaded, not an older file with a similar name.
- Synopsis, sample chapters, and contents come from the same manuscript version; names, chapter order, and ending language are not stranded in an earlier draft.
- The manifest records filenames, version IDs or checksums, chapter count, and completion date.
- Upload preview, chapter order, omissions, truncation, and attachment choices have been checked.
- A fluent AI answer has not moved Author decision needed or External confirmation needed to Checked.
The stop condition is concrete: you have checked the actual upload set, the provenance ledger and version manifest point to it, open items retain their real status, and the author knows which official material informs the decision. Use review and revise for story-quality issues and prose revision for bounded wording work.
FAQ
Does a Reference to Synthetic Information Settle AI-Fiction Eligibility?
Not from a matching phrase alone. Check what the clause governs, then locate the author rules, submission instructions, and proposed agreement for the actual route. If they still do not cover your use, keep the item under External confirmation needed instead of expanding the clause beyond its scope.
Why Check the Synopsis and Samples After Reading the Manuscript?
Attachments may come from an earlier version and retain a removed character, old chapter order, or superseded ending. Put the manuscript, synopsis, samples, and contents in one version manifest and confirm that each comes from the final draft the author read.
Do it with the skill
Use story-review for general story and character issues. Keep this submission check limited to route-specific rules, AI input/output provenance, and the final-file manifest. Leave open items under Author decision needed or External confirmation needed, and do not let the model invent platform policy, sources, or a submission verdict.
Read the method: Scope, source evidence, and read-only boundaries of manuscript review