HUMANLEDGER

Revision 10 · Changed

Part I restructured around the six conditions

· v0.2

Was

Part I argued from the creative industries: Act III was written from the marketing front line, and Act IV ended with the ten-row creative table as the worked example.

Now

Part I argues from work in general and closes Act IV on the six core conditions. The creative-industry material, including the original Act III and the table, sits unchanged in an annex at the end.

What changed

Act III, “The frontline”, now describes the clinicians, lawyers, analysts, engineers, teachers and creators whose work AI drafts, checks or replaces, instead of brands, agencies and content creators.

In Act IV, Principle One no longer says “creative work”, and the ten-row table after the principles is replaced by the six core conditions, each with what it discloses and what a floor looks like. The second open argument now asks which of the six conditions survive, and the “Who else” section no longer addresses marketing alone.

Nothing was deleted. The original Act III, the table and the note on its two broken metrics are reproduced unchanged in an annex at the end of the article, with an explanation of how the conditions show up in creative work. Every changed passage carries a footnote, and the article now opens with a dated update line.

Why

The standard became cross-industry in version 0.2, but its founding essay still made the case from one sector. A reader from a hospital, a law firm or a bank met a campaign, an agency and a table of marketing metrics before reaching anything about their own work.

The six conditions are the standard; the table was always an illustration. Putting the conditions where the table stood makes the essay end on the thing it is arguing for.

The creative industries stay in the essay because that is where AI landed first and where the argument began. As an annex they are what every annex is meant to be: one sector’s rendering of the same six conditions.

Where it shows

All revisions →