> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://playbook.pharmatools.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # AI Audit-Trail Log Template > Contemporaneous log of AI use across a project — supports disclosure, sponsor audits, and EU AI Act documentation. A contemporaneous log of AI use across a project. The same record feeds journal disclosure, sponsor audits, and EU AI Act documentation. Build it as you write — reconstruction at submission time is unreliable. For the principles behind this template, see [Review and Accountability](/principles/review-and-accountability) and [Declaring AI Use](/principles/declaring-ai-use). ## How to use this template * **Start the log at project kickoff,** not at submission. "What tool did I use in week 2?" three months later doesn't survive audit. * **One log per project, deliverable group, or workstream** — whatever your client or sponsor SOP defines as a unit. * **Log every non-trivial AI use.** Spell-check is generally exempt; everything else benefits from capture. * **Store the log in the shared project location,** not in a personal note. Audit trails that aren't shared aren't auditable. * **Retain per the longest applicable timeframe** (sponsor SOP, journal author guidelines, regulatory archiving). Default is the project's record-retention period. *** ## Project header Fill in once at kickoff. Update if scope or ownership changes. | Field | Value | | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **Project name** | \[e.g., Drug X Phase 3 primary publication] | | **Deliverable type** | \[e.g., Primary publication / regulatory submission / promotional leave-piece] | | **Sponsor / client** | \[Sponsor or client name] | | **Agency (if applicable)** | \[Agency name] | | **SOP reference** | \[e.g., ABC-SOP-0042 v3.1] | | **Project lead / owner** | \[Name and role] | | **Accountable reviewer** | \[Name and role — the named human responsible for sign-off] | | **Log start date** | \[YYYY-MM-DD] | | **Log location** | \[Folder path or project file where this log is stored] | *** ## AI use entries One row per discrete AI use. Add rows as you go. | Date | Deliverable / section | Tool + version | Scope of use | Source inputs | Reviewer | Outcome | Notes | | ---------- | ----------------------------- | ----------------------- | ---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | 2026-05-04 | Manuscript Discussion section | Claude Opus 4.7 | Drafting (initial) | Trial CSR sections 11–14; key messages doc v2 | A. Smith | Accepted with edits | Two paragraphs rewritten to add HR confidence intervals | | 2026-05-05 | Manuscript Methods section | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Editing for clarity | Existing draft section | A. Smith | Accepted as-is | Light copy-edits only | | 2026-05-05 | All references (40) | RefCheckr (closed-loop) | Reference verification and rewrite | Source PDFs of all cited references | A. Smith | 3 rewrites accepted, 1 manual edit | Closed-loop output reviewed; one claim required manual rephrasing | | 2026-05-08 | Visual abstract | Nano Banana 2 | Concept image generation | Brief prompt + key messages | M. Jones | Accepted | Caption updated to flag conceptual nature | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Add rows as needed. Keep entries one-line where possible; expand in the Notes column. ### Field guidance * **Date** — when the AI was used, not when the entry was written. * **Deliverable / section** — be specific enough that a reviewer can locate the work product. "Manuscript" alone is not specific; "Manuscript Discussion section" is. * **Tool + version** — always include both. "Claude" without a version is undefined when reviewed six months later. * **Scope of use** — one of: Drafting, Editing, Translation, Verification, Synthesis, Image generation, Other. Match the categories used in [Declaring AI Use](/principles/declaring-ai-use). * **Source inputs** — what was given to the AI? Source documents, prompts, prior drafts. * **Reviewer** — the named human who checked the AI output. A blank reviewer field means an unaccountable AI use; the row is not yet complete. * **Outcome** — Accepted as-is / Accepted with edits / Rejected / Pending review. Clear all pending entries before sign-off. * **Notes** — brief context: what changed, what didn't, what was flagged. *** ## Sign-off block Complete at deliverable finalisation. | Field | Value | | ------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Final deliverable version** | \[Version number / file name] | | **All log entries reviewed** | \[Yes / No] | | **All pending entries cleared** | \[Yes / No] | | **Disclosure language drafted** | \[Yes / No — link to specific snippet from the [Disclosure Language Template](/templates/disclosure-language) if used] | | **Final reviewer name** | \[Name and role] | | **Sign-off date** | \[YYYY-MM-DD] | *** ## What this log supports A single log feeds four downstream uses: * **Journal disclosure** — entries become the basis for the AI-use statement, with the [Disclosure Language Template](/templates/disclosure-language) as the wording reference. * **Sponsor or client audit** — when asked "What AI was used on this deliverable?", the log is the answer. Without it, you reconstruct from memory under pressure. * **EU AI Act documentation** — the contemporaneous record of tool use, scope, and reviewer aligns with Article 50 transparency obligations and the general documentation expectations covered in [AI Regulation in Pharma](/principles/ai-regulation). * **Internal QC retrospectives** — patterns emerge across projects: which tools cause the most rework, which scope of use produces the cleanest output, where reviewers spend their time. *** ## Common mistakes * **Building the log at submission.** "I'll remember" is not a strategy. Weeks of AI use cannot be reconstructed reliably; entries get missed and the disclosure is weaker than it should be. * **Logging only successful uses.** Rejected and revised entries matter — they show review was active, not rubber-stamped. * **Vague tool names.** "ChatGPT" doesn't tell a reviewer in 18 months whether it was GPT-4 or GPT-5. Always include version. * **Missing the reviewer column.** A log entry without a reviewer name is an unaccountable AI use. Complete the row before treating the entry as logged. * **Storing the log in a personal note.** If a colleague needs the log during your absence and can't find it, the audit trail isn't auditable. Store in the shared project location. *** ## Related * [Review and Accountability](/principles/review-and-accountability) — the principle this log operationalises * [Declaring AI Use](/principles/declaring-ai-use) — the disclosure principle the log feeds * [Disclosure Language Template](/templates/disclosure-language) — ready-to-paste wording derived from the log * [AI Regulation in Pharma](/principles/ai-regulation) — the regulatory expectations this log helps meet *** *Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 · 6 min read*