Methodology

Version 1.0. Published 2 August 2026. Change history: /changelog

Open Colophon is a public record of what books declare about how they were made.

A colophon is the note in a book that states how it was produced — press, type, paper, run. This registry extends that convention to one further question: what part, if any, artificial intelligence played in making the book.

The registry takes no position on which answer is better. A book made entirely with AI and a book made entirely by hand are recorded the same way, in the same words, with the same weight. The only thing assessed is whether a declaration exists and whether it matches the evidence.

The three states

A book's production status is one of three:

• No AI
• With AI
• AI only

There is no fourth state and no gradation. A book that has not declared is not a fourth state — it is simply a book with an empty field.

Who writes the status

Only the entity. The status field on any record is written by the publisher, imprint, or brand that made the book, and by no one else.

This registry does not infer status. It does not estimate, score, or assess likelihood. It does not run detection tools and report the output as a finding. Where no declaration has been made, the field stays empty, and the record says so in those words.

This is the load-bearing rule. Everything else follows from it.

What triggers a status request

A status request is sent when both of the following hold:

1. Public-facing material for a title contains an implied claim of human authorship, craft, or hand production, and
2. No production statement exists in the colophon, copyright page, product listing, or publisher's page for that title.

Both conditions. Either one alone triggers nothing.

What counts as an implied claim

• Process language stated as fact: hand-drawn, hand-lettered, hand-bound, painted, inked
• Craft vocabulary: traditional craftsmanship, artisan, handmade, made by hand
• Marketing that foregrounds the artist's hand as the reason to buy
• Claims of originality tied to production rather than to content — for example, that every drawing in an edition is original

What does not count

• Generic praise: beautiful, stunning, exquisite, lavish
• Style or genre description: "in the tradition of botanical illustration"
• Description of historical source material rather than of the edition in hand
• A named illustrator credit on its own. Crediting an illustrator is not a claim about how the work was produced.

That last exclusion is deliberate and absolute. Naming the person who made a book is good practice, and this registry will not turn good practice into an occasion for a letter.

Outcomes

The third row is a commitment. An entity that promised nothing is not a target, and silence about production is not itself a finding.

Sequence

Collection precedes contact. Contact precedes publication.

1. Public material is collected and quoted.
2. An archive snapshot is taken before anything is published.
3. A status request is sent to the entity, stating the date on which the record will publish.
4. The record publishes on that date — with the entity's statement if one was provided, or with a note that none was received.

Nothing is published before the entity has been written to and given the stated window. Publishing first and asking afterwards is an ambush; this registry does not operate that way.

The response window is 30 days from the date the request is sent.

Human review

Every trigger is reviewed by a person before any letter is sent and before any record is published. Automated detection of implied claims produces false positives on ordinary praise, and no automated finding reaches a letter or a public page unreviewed.

The reviewer checks that:

• the quotation is verbatim,
• it is attributed to the correct title and edition,
• it was live at the stated date of collection,
• and that the exclusions above have been applied.

Reviewer notes and reviewer identity are held, not published.

Quotation and sources

Quotations are short excerpts of public marketing copy, attributed, with a live link to the source and an archive snapshot. This is quotation for the purpose of reporting a fact — that a specific claim was made, by a specific entity, on a specific date. It is not reproduction of anyone's copy, and quotations are kept to the minimum length that shows the claim.

Marketing copy changes. The record must not depend on the source staying where it was, which is why a snapshot is taken before publication rather than after.

Every published line carries a date.

Corrections and right of reply

• An entity may provide or amend its status at any time. Amendments are published on receipt.
• An entity may dispute a quotation as misattributed, out of date, or not current at the date of collection. Disputes are reviewed by a person and, where upheld, the record is corrected or withdrawn.
• Corrections are not silent. Every change to a record is versioned and the history is public at /changelog.
• Reader submissions are supporting documents, not findings. A submission does not change a record until it has been reviewed and the entity has had 30 days to respond.

What is published and what is not

Published: entity name; title and edition; the quoted claim; source URL; date collected; archive snapshot; whether a production statement was found; confirmed status where the entity has provided one; date confirmed; date the status request was sent; whether a response was received.

Held, not published: full page captures, correspondence, reviewer notes, reviewer identity.

Standard wording

• Confirmed — "[Entity] states: [status]. Confirmed [date]."
• Claim present, unconfirmed — "[Entity] publicly states: '[quote]' ([source], [date]). No production statement found. No confirmation provided."
• No claims found — "No production claims found for this title as of [date]."
• No response — "Status request sent [date]. No response received as of [date]. This record will be updated if a statement is provided."

None of these characterises an entity. All of them are checkable against a dated source.

Who runs this, and how it is funded

Open Colophon is run by Michael Novoselov, who also operates verificai.shop, a commercial business.

That connection is stated here rather than left to be discovered. The separation it rests on is this: no place in this registry is for sale, and no outcome in it can be paid for. Inclusion is free, correction is free, and confirming a status is free. Nothing offered by verificai.shop affects any record, and no record is created, altered, withheld, or accelerated on any commercial basis.

Registration in the registry is free and will remain free.

Standing commitments

1. Status is written by the entity. It is never derived.
2. Failed and unconfirmed records are published alongside confirmed ones. A registry that publishes only successes is a sticker, not a standard.
3. The trigger criterion above is public and applies to every entity identically, including any with a commercial relationship to verificai.shop.
4. Changes to this methodology are versioned, dated, and published. Prior versions remain accessible.

Questions, corrections, and statements: contact@opencolophon.org