AUTHORING-ITD-001: AI-Assisted Documentation
CONTEXT
LostHex uses AI tools (Cursor, Claude) throughout the development process. Documentation is no exception—AI can draft specs, structure ITDs, and iterate on feedback faster than manual writing.
The Question: Should we formally encourage AI assistance in documentation, or keep it informal?
PROBLEM
How should teams use AI tools when writing specs and ITDs?
OPTIONS CONSIDERED
Discourage AI - Require human-written documentation for authenticity
✅ Encourage AI with human accountability - Use AI freely, but humans own the output
Mandate AI - Require AI drafts for all documentation
REASONING
Option 1 (Discourage): Slower, no real benefit. "Authenticity" doesn't matter if the content is accurate and well-reasoned.
Option 2 (Encourage with accountability): AI accelerates drafting and iteration. Humans verify accuracy, ensure reasoning reflects reality, and take responsibility for claims. Best of both worlds.
Option 3 (Mandate): Too rigid. Sometimes quick notes or small edits don't need AI. Forcing it adds friction.
IMPLICATIONS
Authors may use AI tools freely for drafting, structuring, and iterating
Authors remain accountable for all content—"the AI wrote it" is not a defense
Reviewers evaluate the document, not the tools authors used
No disclosure requirement for AI usage
Last updated