MODULE 06 · Orientation · 70 MINUTES
Evidence, intellectual property, and responsible AI
Learn the principle. Practice the work. Preserve what you learn.
Your learning goals
- Separate source claims, original interpretation, and AI assistance.
- Record permissions for the specific intended use.
- Verify a draft before submitting it for organizational use.
Preparation
Build a provenance trail
Every substantive claim or borrowed element needs a traceable origin. A source record should identify the author or organization, title, date, exact location, relevant passage or finding, and the use you intend. Distinguish research evidence, organizational statements, participant experience, and your own proposed interpretation. A confident tone does not strengthen weak evidence. Check the source itself when a claim matters and preserve the limitations that affect the conclusion. For web information, record the date accessed and the exact page. For a dataset, record its provenance, version, permitted use, variables, and known limitations. For an image or teaching activity, record its creator and the permission basis.
Match permission to the activity
A publicly visible resource can carry restrictions on copying, modifying, displaying, storing, analyzing, or redistributing it. Treat each intended use separately. A participant’s willingness to share a result addresses the participant’s choice; the provider’s rights may still govern the assessment wording, report design, or taxonomy. Use the current organizational rights record for external assessments and resolve an unestablished use before incorporating protected content. Prefer original exercises and verified general source links where the assignment permits. Preserve attribution and licensing records with the project. This curriculum uses original teaching material and fictional examples; it does not reproduce an external assessment or establish a license for one.
Use AI as a documented work aid
Organization-approved AI tools may help brainstorm, organize, critique, or draft within the assigned information boundaries. Give the tool a clear task, audience, source packet, and output constraints. Treat its response as material requiring verification. Open cited sources, check calculations, compare claims with the original text, and inspect for invented quotations or unsupported certainty. Keep restricted information within its authorized environment. Record the meaningful AI contribution, your verification steps, and substantive revisions. A useful contribution log explains what the tool helped with and what you changed. Accountability remains with the assigned workflow and the evidence supporting the work, even when the first draft was produced quickly.
Worked example
Worked example: repairing an AI-assisted source summary
A fictional AI draft says a workshop study “proved lasting transformation,” but the inspected paper reports a small, short-term self-report survey. The intern revises the sentence to describe the measured response, sample, and follow-up period. The source table records the exact paper and limitation. A borrowed assessment diagram is replaced by an original process diagram because the intended reproduction permission is unestablished. The contribution log records AI-assisted drafting, source verification, and the two substantive corrections.
Your practical assignment
Prepare a provenance and verification packet
- Create a six-item source and asset ledger using public or fictional examples.
- For each item, identify the claim or element, creator, exact source, intended use, and permission state.
- Write a 300-word AI-assisted draft from a small source packet, or simulate the AI draft using the worked example.
- Verify each factual claim and revise unsupported language.
- Prepare a contribution log and a short rights question for any unresolved use.
Evidence to prepare
- A six-row provenance and rights ledger.
- A verified 300-word draft with citations.
- A contribution log and one bounded rights question.
Assignment scoring guide
Use these criteria for self assessment and feedback. Each criterion contributes 25 points to the 100-point assignment rubric.
| Criterion | Points | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Source fidelity | 25 | The draft accurately represents inspected sources and their limitations. |
| Rights reasoning | 25 | Permission states are specific to the intended activity. |
| AI verification | 25 | Claims, citations, and calculations receive meaningful checks. |
| Documentation | 25 | The packet preserves provenance and substantive revisions. |
Reflection
- Which claim in your work deserves the strongest verification?
- How would a future contributor reconstruct your permission decision?
Scoring and revision guidance
Evidence is absent or cannot be assessed.
Limited evidence; substantial guidance and revision are needed.
Partially demonstrated; a material element needs revision.
The essential requirement is met; minor corrections remain.
Complete, accurate, traceable, and usable evidence for the criterion.
Review the explanation for each missed question, revisit the relevant lesson, and retry. Revise practical work against the rubric and document the change.
Connected learning
Knowledge into practice
Answer all five questions, then view the explanations. Practice target: 80%. Revisit any lesson and try again.
Preserve your work
Sign in in a new tab for saved learning. Return to this tab to continue your work and save.
Each save creates a dated record. Keep a copy in your approved project workspace until the saved confirmation appears. Sensitive personal, clinical, donor, and participant records belong in their designated systems.