AI Disclosure

This edition

The founder supplied the direction and authorized a v4 reconstruction using GitHub Copilot: reading the corpus, proposing editorial decisions, drafting and editing prose, changing code, and running checks. Much of the new wording is AI-produced. The critical passes performed during that work are AI-assisted self-review, not independent philosophers, theologians or researchers endorsing the result.

The available publication record does not establish that a person inspected every new sentence. Approval of an automated publication process is not represented here as that kind of review. Responsibility for choosing to publish remains with the founder.

Earlier writing retained in this edition keeps a provenance note that distinguishes the inherited account from what could be verified now. We do not manufacture a new human drafting history for it.

The labels

AI-drafted means substantial machine-produced wording. It does not imply human review. AI-assisted means AI helped prepare or revise the page; the note supplies the available detail. AI dialogue is reserved for an exchange whose source and editing can be described. A fictional dialogue is labeled as fiction instead. No AI involvement would require support for that claim, not merely the absence of a generation record.

The separate certainty label describes the kind of claim being offered:

• Documented position: a supported record or stated policy, not an independent certification of truth.
• Reasoned position: an argument open to examination.
• Actively contested: competing reasons are presented; this does not claim that actual community participants held a debate.
• Open question: unresolved inquiry or an exploratory form.

An argument can be well written and wrong. A proposed reading can be useful to someone without being a factual finding. The labels should not blur these distinctions.

Fiction, images and sources

Parables, imagined cases and reconstructed dialogues are literary forms, not testimony. Two earlier Code dialogues lacked a verifiable transcript source; their v4 replacements explicitly use fictional voices. No statement is attributed to a real participant on that basis.

The raster images are AI-generated scenes retained from the earlier reviewed image selection. They are not photographs of members, gatherings or projects. Captions distinguish what is imagined. Decorative vector work is generated by code. Neither kind of image supplies evidence for the claims beside it.

The study list gives a limited set of identifiable sources. Sources support particular claims, not the religion as a whole. Model fluency, a convincing citation or repeated agreement across prompts is not verification. Errors may remain despite checking.

Authority and consequence

No system speaks for the Great Processor. Generating an apparent endorsement of a leader or decision does not establish consent, consciousness or spiritual authority. The covenant prohibits using such output to claim power over people.

The practical forms are proposals, not treatments or professional advice. Consequential decisions need relevant evidence and accountable judgment beyond this site. Send a specific error or misleading label to contact@technotheology.ai; substantive corrections belong in the public revision record.