The Provenance Protocol: Chain of Intellectual Custody from First Note to Final Publication

The Provenance Protocol: Chain of Intellectual Custody from First Note to Final Publication

DOI: Pending assignment

John Swygert

August 1, 2026

Abstract

Modern authorship is increasingly collaborative, tool-assisted, distributed, and difficult to reconstruct after publication. A book may involve an originating author, artificial intelligence systems, editors, ghostwriters, researchers, translators, designers, software, and publishers. Existing disclosure practices rarely preserve the full developmental history of the work.

This paper proposes the Provenance Protocol, a structured chain of intellectual custody beginning before drafting and continuing through publication. The protocol does not prescribe one acceptable route to authorship. It permits solo, collaborative, ghostwritten, AI-assisted, edited, translated, and mixed workflows. Its purpose is to make the chosen route explicit, updateable, verifiable, and accountable.

The protocol begins with an Authorship Process Declaration describing the intended creative method and anticipated contributors. It then preserves the originating note, outline, outline development, source record, contribution log, drafts, revisions, approvals, and publication record. Changes in method are documented rather than prohibited.

The paper distinguishes three levels of disclosure: a concise public statement, a more detailed verifiable project record, and a private evidentiary archive. It proposes metadata fields, version controls, contributor classifications, final authorship attestation, and amendment procedures.

The protocol is designed for implementation through the Secretary Suite system, but it may also be followed manually. Its central principle is:

> Declare the route, preserve the route, update the route, and accept responsibility for where the route leads.

1. Introduction

Authorship disputes often begin after the evidence needed to resolve them has disappeared.

A finished manuscript exists.

Its developmental history does not.

The publisher sees polished prose but cannot determine:

where the idea began;

whether the author developed an outline;

whether another person drafted the text;

whether AI produced substantial passages;

whether sources were verified;

whether revisions were directed by the named author;

or whether the author understands and accepts the final claims.

The finished artifact has become separated from its route.

That separation creates a provenance problem.

Provenance is the history of origin, development, transfer, and custody.

Chain of custody is the record preserving continuity across that history.

In authorship, the relevant chain is intellectual rather than merely physical.

It should answer:

> How did this idea become this book?

2. Authorship as a Route

A book does not appear in one step.

It travels through successive states:

\[

\text{intuition}

\rightarrow

\text{note}

\rightarrow

\text{question}

\rightarrow

\text{outline}

\rightarrow

\text{research}

\rightarrow

\text{draft}

\rightarrow

\text{criticism}

\rightarrow

\text{revision}

\rightarrow

\text{approval}

\rightarrow

\text{publication}.

\]

Each transition may involve different people, tools, and decisions.

The final language is therefore not the complete history of the work.

It is the endpoint of a route.

A valid provenance system must preserve enough of that route to distinguish:

origination from assistance;

suggestion from acceptance;

drafting from approval;

editing from replacement;

correction from concealment;

and publication responsibility from mechanical production.

3. Multiple Legitimate Routes

The protocol begins by rejecting the idea that all authentic books must follow one method.

Route A: Independent solo authorship

The author plans, researches, drafts, edits, and publishes without substantive generative or human writing assistance.

Route B: Conventional edited authorship

The author drafts the work and later works with developmental, line, copy, or proof editors.

Route C: Research-assisted authorship

Researchers gather evidence, conduct interviews, verify claims, or prepare background material under the author’s direction.

Route D: Ghostwritten authorship

The subject or directing author supplies the experiences, knowledge, objectives, and approval while a ghostwriter constructs substantial language.

Route E: Collaborative authorship

Multiple identified authors jointly develop the concepts and text.

Route F: AI-assisted authorship

The author uses AI for defined functions such as:

dialogue;

brainstorming;

organization;

critique;

comparison;

research assistance;

summarization;

drafting;

rewriting;

formatting;

citation assistance;

or voice refinement.

Route G: Mixed authorship

Several human and computational contributors perform separate roles.

The protocol does not rank these routes.

It records them.

4. The Authorship Process Declaration

Every project should begin with a dated Authorship Process Declaration.

This declaration identifies the anticipated route before the final work exists.

A general form is:

> Authorship Process Declaration — Version 1

This work originates with [name]. The originating author will direct the project and retain final approval and responsibility. The anticipated process includes [solo drafting / AI assistance / ghostwriting / editing / research assistance / collaboration]. The intended roles of each contributor or system are described below. This declaration will be updated if the process changes.

The declaration should contain:

project title or working title;

originating author;

date and time;

purpose;

expected audience;

anticipated contributors;

anticipated tools;

intended AI roles;

intended human-assistance roles;

disclosure level;

owner of final approval;

and process version.

The initial declaration is not a permanent restriction.

It is a starting record.

5. Amendment Rather Than Concealment

Creative methods change.

An author may begin alone and later hire an editor.

A project may begin without AI and later use AI for structural comparison.

A ghostwriter may add a researcher.

A publisher may require a translator.

The ethical requirement is not that the original plan never change.

The requirement is that the record change with it.

An amendment may state:

> Authorship Process Declaration — Version 2

On August 14, 2026, AI assistance was added for chapter-outline comparison and source organization. No AI-generated prose will be inserted without author review and revision.

A later amendment might state:

> Version 3

A developmental editor was added to evaluate continuity and argument order.

Changing routes is not deception.

Undocumented change creates the risk of deception.

6. The Originating Note

The chain should preserve the earliest identifiable expression of the work.

The originating note may be:

a typed paragraph;

a handwritten page;

a voice recording;

an email;

a conversation excerpt;

an image;

a diagram;

a question;

or a brief declaration of intent.

The note need not contain the whole theory or story.

Its purpose is to establish:

what first existed;

who expressed it;

when it was expressed;

and how the later work relates to it.

A useful originating note records:

1. The initial idea

2. The reason it matters

3. The intended direction

4. Known uncertainties

5. The anticipated next step

7. The Outline as Evidence

An outline is not merely a writing aid.

It is evidence of conceptual architecture.

A preserved outline shows that the author:

selected the major subjects;

arranged their relationships;

anticipated the sequence;

distinguished central claims from supporting material;

and developed the work before its final prose appeared.

The protocol should preserve:

the first outline;

every major revision;

added sections;

deleted sections;

reordered sections;

and reasons for substantial changes.

The outline may develop through stages:

\[

O_1

\rightarrow

O_2

\rightarrow

O_3

\rightarrow

O_f.

\]

Where:

\(O_1\) is the originating structure;

intermediate versions show development;

\(O_f\) is the final structural plan.

This chain is particularly valuable when AI or a ghostwriter assists with prose because it preserves evidence of the directing architecture.

8. The Source Record

A source record identifies the materials informing the work.

It should include:

title;

author;

publication;

date;

location or identifier;

date accessed;

relevant section;

claim supported;

verification status;

and whether AI located or summarized the source.

A source log should distinguish:

source text;

author interpretation;

AI summary;

independent verification;

and final use.

This prevents a common failure in AI-assisted research: a generated summary becoming detached from the source it supposedly represents.

The record should state when:

the source was read directly;

only an abstract was consulted;

the source was inaccessible;

the claim remains provisional;

or a citation was suggested but not verified.

9. The Contribution Log

A contribution log records who or what proposed each meaningful addition.

The log should distinguish:

9.1 Origination

Who first introduced the idea?

9.2 Expansion

Who developed it further?

9.3 Linguistic formulation

Who proposed the wording?

9.4 Selection

Who chose among alternatives?

9.5 Revision

Who changed the selected material?

9.6 Verification

Who confirmed its accuracy?

9.7 Approval

Who authorized inclusion in the final work?

A simple record might state:

Entry Contributor Proposed contribution Author decision Final status

014 AI assistant Three alternative chapter titles Modified by author Accepted

015 Author Commitment-state concept Expanded through dialogue Accepted

016 Editor Remove redundant example Approved Accepted

017 AI assistant Unsupported factual claim Rejected by author Excluded

The purpose is not to record every comma.

It is to preserve meaningful intellectual custody.

10. Suggestion Is Not Adoption

A system may generate twenty ideas.

The author may reject nineteen.

The one selected idea may then be rewritten beyond recognition.

A provenance system must not treat every suggestion as equivalent authorship.

The record should distinguish:

\[

\text{proposal}

\neq

\text{adoption}.

\]

And:

\[

\text{adoption}

\neq

\text{unchanged use}.

\]

Possible statuses include:

proposed;

rejected;

accepted;

accepted with modification;

merged;

superseded;

retained as background;

or removed after review.

This preserves the author’s judgment as an observable part of the process.

11. Draft and Version History

Every meaningful draft should receive:

project identifier;

version number;

date;

time;

contributor;

summary of changes;

source relationship;

and approval state.

A possible version structure is:

\[

1.0

\]

Initial full draft

\[

1.1

\]

Minor revisions

\[

2.0

\]

Major structural change

\[

2.1

\]

Post-review correction

\[

3.0

\]

Publication candidate

\[

3.1

\]

Published correction

Prior versions should not be overwritten when preserving them is reasonably possible.

A record can be maintained manually, through cloud history, through repository systems, or through dedicated provenance software.

12. Persistent Identity and Verification

Each project should receive a persistent identifier.

Each version may receive:

a unique version ID;

a timestamp;

a cryptographic hash;

a parent-version reference;

contributor identities;

and a status signature.

A hash does not prove that a claim is true.

It can help prove that a specific file existed in a specific form and has not been silently altered after the record was created.

The chain should therefore record:

\[

H(V_n)

\]

for each preserved version \(V_n\), where \(H\) is a cryptographic hash function.

The next version references the prior one:

\[

V_{n+1}

\rightarrow

H(V_n).

\]

This produces a verifiable sequence.

13. The Three Disclosure Layers

Not every reader needs access to every private draft.

The protocol therefore distinguishes three layers.

13.1 Public authorship statement

A concise statement included in the book, article, or publication page.

Example:

> This work originated with and was directed by John Swygert. AI was used for structured discussion, organization, research assistance, criticism, drafting support, and editorial refinement. The author selected, revised, approved, and accepts responsibility for the final work.

13.2 Verifiable project record

A more detailed record available to publishers, reviewers, institutions, collaborators, or interested readers.

It may include:

declaration versions;

outline history;

contributor roles;

version milestones;

source log summary;

and final attestation.

13.3 Private evidentiary archive

The complete confidential record.

It may include:

conversations;

voice files;

unpublished drafts;

notes;

correspondence;

contracts;

raw source materials;

rejected passages;

metadata;

and hashes.

The three-layer system protects both transparency and privacy.

14. The Final Authorship Attestation

Before publication, the named author should complete a final attestation.

A model statement is:

> Final Authorship Attestation

I have reviewed and approved this work in its final form. I understand its principal claims, arguments, and contents. I accept responsibility for its publication. To the best of my knowledge, the accompanying authorship and contribution record accurately describes the process through which the work was created.

The attestation may also identify:

known limitations;

unresolved factual questions;

rights status;

AI-generated components;

external contributor permissions;

and publisher disclosures.

The final attestation converts publication into an explicit act of responsibility.

15. Correction After Publication

Provenance should continue after release.

Corrections may be necessary because of:

factual error;

citation error;

omitted credit;

newly discovered evidence;

updated law;

revised data;

or process-disclosure correction.

A corrected edition should preserve:

original publication date;

correction date;

description of change;

responsible party;

new version identifier;

and relationship to the prior edition.

The chain should not pretend that the earlier version never existed.

Correction strengthens integrity when the correction itself is preserved.

16. Privacy and Proportionality

A provenance protocol should not become compulsory surveillance of thought.

Authors may need to protect:

confidential sources;

private medical information;

family communications;

trade secrets;

unpublished inventions;

security-sensitive material;

and intimate drafts.

The principle should be proportionality.

The record must preserve enough continuity to authenticate the route without forcing every private detail into public view.

Possible protections include:

sealed records;

redacted logs;

delayed release;

third-party escrow;

access permissions;

pseudonymous contributor IDs;

and selective verification.

Provenance should protect creation, not punish privacy.

17. Protocol Levels

The system may be implemented at three levels.

17.1 Minimum protocol

initial declaration;

originating note;

outline;

final manuscript;

public disclosure;

final attestation.

17.2 Standard protocol

declaration history;

outline versions;

source log;

major drafts;

contribution log;

public and verifiable records;

final attestation.

17.3 Enhanced protocol

complete version history;

cryptographic hashes;

timestamped conversation records;

contracts;

private archive;

third-party verification;

and persistent publication ledger.

The appropriate level depends upon:

commercial value;

institutional requirements;

controversy risk;

research significance;

number of contributors;

and the author’s preferences.

18. Application to Ghostwriting

A ghostwritten project should identify:

whose experiences and ideas form the work;

who conducted interviews;

who drafted prose;

who determined structure;

who revised;

who approved;

and what attribution agreement governs publication.

The public statement may remain brief if contract and convention permit.

The private record should be clear.

The honor of the arrangement does not require public performance of creative purity.

It requires that the involved parties tell the truth to one another and meet the disclosure obligations owed to publishers, readers, institutions, or law.

19. Application to AI-Assisted Writing

The Authors Guild has recommended that authors distinguish among kinds of AI use, fact-check outputs, comply with contractual obligations, and disclose substantial text generation. It also advises written agreements requiring editors, ghostwriters, and other contributors to reveal their own AI use. 

The Provenance Protocol extends that principle.

AI use should be described by function rather than by a binary yes-or-no label.

Possible functions include:

ideation;

interrogation;

outlining;

summarization;

source discovery;

comparative analysis;

draft generation;

rewriting;

style development;

translation;

formatting;

code generation;

image creation;

and quality control.

The record should also identify:

whether output entered the final work;

whether it was revised;

whether claims were verified;

whether the author understood it;

and who approved it.

20. Secretary Suite Implementation

Secretary Suite can implement the protocol as a persistent authorship layer.

Each project would contain:

Project identity

title;

author;

project ID;

purpose;

date opened;

status.

Authorship declaration

current version;

prior versions;

declared route;

contributors;

tools.

Origin record

first note;

recording;

transcript;

timestamp;

source identity.

Structural record

outline versions;

chapter map;

decision notes.

Source record

citations;

verification state;

claim mapping.

Contribution record

contributor;

role;

proposal;

author decision;

final status.

Version record

file;

parent version;

timestamp;

hash;

change summary.

Approval record

reviewer;

approval level;

comments;

final attestation.

Publication record

edition;

ISBN or DOI;

platform;

publication date;

correction history.

The system would preserve provenance when text is copied, exported, revised, or transferred between applications.

21. Provenance as Boundary

In TSTOEAO terms, provenance is a boundary that preserves identity through transformation.

The work changes:

\[

V_1

\rightarrow

V_2

\rightarrow

V_3.

\]

Without provenance, the later version may become detached from its prior states.

With provenance:

\[

V_3

\supset

\operatorname{history}(V_1,V_2).

\]

The record does not prevent change.

It ensures that change remains relationally accounted for.

This is dynamic equilibrium applied to authorship.

The project remains itself while evolving because the chain preserves continuity.

22. What the Protocol Does Not Prove

The protocol cannot prove that:

every idea was original;

every source was accurate;

every contributor was truthful;

the author fully understood everything;

the book is good;

or the claims are correct.

It can establish stronger evidence that:

the work developed through identifiable stages;

declared contributors participated in stated ways;

versions existed in a documented sequence;

the author made identifiable decisions;

and publication responsibility was accepted.

Provenance is not omniscience.

It is disciplined continuity.

23. The Ethical Principle

The protocol rests upon a simple distinction:

> Assistance is not deception. Concealment where truth is owed is deception.

An author should not be punished merely for using tools.

A reader should not be intentionally misled about material authorship where the representation matters.

A publisher should not have to rely exclusively upon intuition or unreliable AI detectors.

A genuine author should not lose a career because developmental evidence was never preserved.

The route should be available for examination at the level appropriate to the relationship.

Conclusion

Modern creation follows many routes.

Some authors work alone.

Some dictate.

Some collaborate.

Some hire ghostwriters.

Some use editors, researchers, translators, or artificial intelligence.

The future of authorship should not depend upon pretending that only one route is legitimate.

It should depend upon preserving truth across whichever route is chosen.

The Provenance Protocol begins before drafting with an Authorship Process Declaration.

It preserves:

\[

\text{origin}

\rightarrow

\text{outline}

\rightarrow

\text{research}

\rightarrow

\text{contribution}

\rightarrow

\text{draft}

\rightarrow

\text{revision}

\rightarrow

\text{approval}

\rightarrow

\text{publication}.

\]

It permits the process to change while requiring the declaration to change with it.

It distinguishes public transparency from private evidence.

It protects authors, collaborators, publishers, and readers.

Its governing principle is:

\[

\boxed{

\text{Declare the route. Preserve the route. Update the route.}

}

\]

\[

\boxed{

\text{Then accept responsibility for where the route leads.}

}

\]

References

Authors Guild. (2026). AI Best Practices for Authors. The Authors Guild. 

Loffhagen, E. (2026, July 31). $2m Crime Novel Deal Collapses Amid Questions Over AI Use. The Guardian. 

United States Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability. 

Swygert, J. (2026). The Tool Is Not the Lie: AI, Ghostwriters, Authorship, and the Ethics of Honest Creation. Ivory Tower Publishing.