Summary

On its gift certificate page, Corazón de Cacao indicates that the certificates were created with the help of AI and that the ideas and input came from the project. [1] This is better than invisible provenance. But the notice does not yet explain which parts were generated, who reviewed them, or whether the people or places depicted are real.

For FlameP, the implication is this: AI labeling needs a purpose and proximity to the content. It should not merely be a general label but should make provenance, human editing, and accountable approval understandable.

1. Transparency for Whom and for What?

A notice can serve different functions. It can prevent deception, explain authorship, identify a synthetic depiction, or indicate uncertainty.

“Created with AI” is often too broad for this. Was a text corrected, an image generated in its entirety, or a real photograph altered? These differences affect what viewers may reasonably assume.

2. Position Is Part of the Statement

A notice in the footer may be formally present yet practically invisible. The more strongly synthetic content depicts a specific person, place, event, or project success, the closer the label should be to the content.

For purely decorative elements, a consolidated explanation may suffice. For evidentiary images or testimonials, a blanket label covering the entire page would not be adequate.

3. Labeling Can Become an Excuse

The counterposition is that too many notices would disrupt the design and burden people with technical details. Moreover, it would scarcely be possible to document every minor use of AI.

That is true. Not every spelling correction needs a warning sign. The relevant threshold is reached when AI changes the meaning, evidentiary value, or expected authenticity of content.

At the same time, a notice must not become a formula for avoiding responsibility: “We said we used AI” answers no questions about rights, errors, stereotypes, or accountable review.

4. What FlameP Makes of This

FlameP distinguishes at least four cases: linguistic assistance, content generation, synthetic media, and alteration of a real original.

Content can carry its provenance directly. In addition, the history continues to show which tool was involved, which human changes followed, and who approved the published version.

The threshold is higher for content serving as evidence. A synthetic image must not appear to be a documentary photograph. A generated voice must not be attributed to a real person.

5. Provenance Is More Than a Symbol

Technical metadata can support provenance, but it can be lost or incorrect. Visible labeling and a stored creation history complement one another.

FlameP must also enable corrections. If AI-generated content proves misleading after publication, it needs a visible history of changes rather than a silent replacement.

The responsible person remains named. AI is not an author to whom responsibility can be delegated.

6. Conclusion: Disclosure Is the Beginning

A clear notice protects against a fundamental deception. But it is sufficient only if it answers the question relevant to the content.

The rule for FlameP is:

Guiding PrincipleAI provenance is made visible wherever it changes meaning or expected authenticity—together with human editing and accountable approval.

Transparency does not end with the name of the tool. It begins with the effect on viewers.

References

Guiding Principle[1] Corazón de Cacao. Gift Certificates. Public offer page with a transparency notice on AI creation, accessed 7 August 2026.