AdCP — Provenance verification

When a creative arrives with a provenance claim, the receiving party needs to decide whether to trust it. This page describes how AdCP handles that decision: provenance claims travel with the creative from buyer to seller, and each enforcement point — the publisher, the SSP, the verification vendor — runs its own independent check. No single party’s attestation is taken at face value. This separation between declaration and verification is what makes the system work when the parties involved have competing incentives.

Three-moment lifecycle

AI provenance flows through three distinct moments, each handled by existing AdCP tasks.

Moment	When	Who	Task
Declaration	Creative submission	Buyer, agency, or creative tool	`sync_creatives`, `build_creative`
Verification	Before trafficking or during calibration	Seller’s governance agent	`get_creative_features`, `calibrate_content`
Enforcement	Acceptance decision or post-delivery audit	Seller agent, buyer agent	`creative_policy`, `validate_content_delivery`

Each moment is independent. A buyer can declare provenance without any verification having occurred. A seller can verify without requiring a declaration. Enforcement can happen with or without both.

What buyers can declare

Provenance carries three families of evidence. Each survives a different set of supply-chain operations.

Field	What it carries	Survives transcoding?
`c2pa.manifest_url`	Sidecar reference to a detached cryptographic manifest	No — file-level bindings break under ad-server transcoding, resize, and re-encode
`embedded_provenance[]`	Provenance metadata embedded within the content stream (manifest wrapper or invisible markers)	Yes — designed to persist through CMS ingestion, copy-paste, reformatting, and CDN re-encoding
`watermarks[]`	Identifier or fingerprint encoded into the content (audio, image, video, or text watermark)	Yes — survives transformations that preserve perceptual content

embedded_provenance carries a structured provenance record (the chain of custody). watermarks encode an identifier (who generated it, who owns it). A single asset may carry both; pick the right field for what you actually attached.

The verifier contract: seller publishes, buyer represents, seller confirms

Earlier drafts of this work imagined buyers nominating verification endpoints unilaterally. That pattern shipped SSRF risk, vendor sprawl, and a fundamentally wrong trust model: the seller is the verifier-of-record because the seller bears the regulatory liability for what it publishes. The protocol now reflects that. The contract is three steps, each with a clear actor:

Seller publishes the governance agents it accepts on creative_policy.accepted_verifiers[] (returned by get_products). Each entry carries agent_url, optional feature_id (which feature the seller will request against the agent), and optional providers[] (which provider labels the agent covers). The seller has already vetted these endpoints; calls to them are inside the seller’s allowlist.
Buyer represents which of those agents was used by attaching a verify_agent: { agent_url, feature_id? } pointer on each embedded_provenance[] or watermarks[] entry. The buyer’s agent_url MUST match (canonicalized) one of the seller’s published accepted_verifiers[].agent_url. This is buyer-supplied evidence, not buyer-driven routing.
Seller confirms by cross-checking the buyer’s verify_agent.agent_url against the published list (rejecting off-list URLs with PROVENANCE_VERIFIER_NOT_ACCEPTED before any outbound call), then invoking get_creative_features against the matching on-list agent and reconciling the result against the buyer’s claim. The seller MAY use a different on-list agent than the buyer nominated; the seller is the verifier-of-record. When it does substitute, error.details carries both the agent it called and substituted_for so the buyer can audit.

// 1. Seller publishes — returned by get_products on each Product
{
  "creative_policy": {
    "accepted_verifiers": [
      {
        "agent_url": "https://governance.encypher.seller.example",
        "feature_id": "encypher.markers_present_v2",
        "providers": ["Encypher"]
      },
      {
        "agent_url": "https://governance.imatag.seller.example",
        "feature_id": "imatag.watermark_detected",
        "providers": ["Imatag"]
      }
    ]
  }
}

// 2. Buyer represents — attached to creative on sync_creatives
{
  "embedded_provenance": [
    {
      "method": "provenance_markers",
      "provider": "Encypher",
      "verify_agent": {
        "agent_url": "https://governance.encypher.seller.example",
        "feature_id": "encypher.markers_present_v2"
      }
    }
  ]
}

// 3. Seller confirms — cross-check, then call, then reconcile.
//    Off-list URL → PROVENANCE_VERIFIER_NOT_ACCEPTED, no outbound call.
//    On-list URL with contradicting verifier result → PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED.

Sellers MUST NOT call URLs that are not in accepted_verifiers — that closes the buyer-controlled-URL trust gap. Buyers that omit verify_agent (e.g., on a self-verifiable C2PA text manifest with a public key the seller already trusts) leave the agent selection entirely to the seller’s discovery.

What sellers can require

Sellers express what they need on creative_policy, returned by get_products so buyers see requirements before submitting:

Field	Effect
`provenance_required: true`	Creative MUST carry some provenance object, anywhere in the inheritance chain. Submission without provenance is rejected with `PROVENANCE_REQUIRED`.
`provenance_requirements.{require_digital_source_type, require_disclosure_metadata, require_embedded_provenance}`	Field-level requirements. Submission missing the named field is rejected with the corresponding `PROVENANCE_*_MISSING` code. Field-level requirements are seller-enforced — JSON Schema validation does not check them.
`accepted_verifiers[]`	Governance agents the seller will call to verify provenance claims. Buyers’ `verify_agent` references MUST be a canonicalized match of one of these `agent_url` values.

Sellers that publish a requirement MUST enforce it on sync_creatives — that’s the structural-rejection contract. The truth-of-claim contract (does the buyer’s digital_source_type actually match the content?) lives in get_creative_features and surfaces as PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED.

Rejection error codes

When sync_creatives rejects a creative for provenance reasons, the per-creative result carries a structured error with one of:

Code	Meaning	`error.field` points at
`PROVENANCE_REQUIRED`	No provenance object anywhere on the creative, but `provenance_required: true`	The manifest path where provenance was expected
`PROVENANCE_DIGITAL_SOURCE_TYPE_MISSING`	Resolved provenance has no `digital_source_type`	The resolved `provenance.digital_source_type` path
`PROVENANCE_DISCLOSURE_MISSING`	Resolved provenance has no `disclosure.required` (or true without jurisdictions)	The resolved `provenance.disclosure` path
`PROVENANCE_EMBEDDED_MISSING`	Resolved provenance has no `embedded_provenance` entry	The resolved `provenance.embedded_provenance` path
`PROVENANCE_VERIFIER_NOT_ACCEPTED`	`verify_agent.agent_url` is not on the seller’s `accepted_verifiers` list	The offending `verify_agent.agent_url` path
`PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED`	Verifier (called from `accepted_verifiers`) actively refutes the buyer’s claim	The provenance field whose claim was refuted; `error.details` is limited to `{ agent_url, feature_id, claimed_value, observed_value, confidence }` plus `substituted_for` when the seller used an on-list agent other than the one the buyer nominated

Buyers receiving these codes can self-correct without negotiating with the seller — the failure is machine-readable. Auto-retry without correction will not pass.

Audit observations, not rejections

Some provenance claims deserve audit routing even when the verifier has not refuted them. The canonical case is provenance.human_oversight set to edited or directed while provenance.disclosure.required is false. That combination may be legitimate when the declaring party invokes an editorial-responsibility carve-out, but the verifier cannot adjudicate the legal prerequisites from schema fields alone. Governance agents SHOULD surface that claim combination on successful get_creative_features responses as OVERSIGHT_DISCLOSURE_CARVEOUT_CLAIMED. The observation is claim-driven: verifier observations such as observed_value and confidence are useful audit context when available, but they are not required for the observation to fire. field anchors the risky claim side of the multi-field combination, so the canonical path is creative_manifest.provenance.disclosure.required.

{
  "audit_observations": [
    {
      "code": "OVERSIGHT_DISCLOSURE_CARVEOUT_CLAIMED",
      "severity": "audit-worthy",
      "recovery": "informational",
      "field": "creative_manifest.provenance.disclosure.required",
      "message": "Creative claims human-directed AI output does not require disclosure; retain for audit review.",
      "details": {
        "agent_url": "https://governance.encypher.seller.example",
        "feature_id": "ai_generated",
        "claimed_value": {
          "human_oversight": "directed",
          "disclosure_required": false
        },
        "observed_value": true,
        "confidence": 0.94
      }
    }
  ]
}

This observation is not PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED, and it is not grounds for rejection on its own. Sellers MAY accept the creative while retaining the observation for audit, routing it to a human reviewer, or asking the declaring party for corroborating evidence out of band. As with contradiction errors, audit_observations[].details is limited to the audit-safe allowlist { agent_url, feature_id, claimed_value, observed_value, confidence, substituted_for }; for OVERSIGHT_DISCLOSURE_CARVEOUT_CLAIMED, claimed_value is { human_oversight, disclosure_required }, with disclosure_required as the flattened alias for creative_manifest.provenance.disclosure.required. Sellers MUST NOT copy arbitrary verifier extension fields, detail_url, or cross-tenant report data into their own buyer-facing responses.

AI detection via get_creative_features

AI detection is a creative governance feature, evaluated by specialist agents through get_creative_features — the same task used for security scanning, creative quality, and content categorization. AI detection does not require a separate protocol or workflow.

Agent declares AI detection capabilities

An AI detection agent advertises its features via get_adcp_capabilities:

{
  "governance": {
    "creative_features": [
      {
        "feature_id": "ai_generated",
        "type": "binary",
        "description": "Whether the creative contains AI-generated content",
        "methodology_url": "https://detector.example.com/methodology"
      },
      {
        "feature_id": "ai_modified",
        "type": "binary",
        "description": "Whether the creative contains AI-modified elements",
        "methodology_url": "https://detector.example.com/methodology"
      },
      {
        "feature_id": "ai_confidence",
        "type": "quantitative",
        "range": { "min": 0, "max": 1 },
        "description": "Confidence score for AI detection result",
        "methodology_url": "https://detector.example.com/methodology"
      }
    ]
  }
}

Seller evaluates a creative

The seller sends the creative manifest to the AI detection agent:

{
  "creative_manifest": {
    "format_id": {
      "agent_url": "https://creative.adcontextprotocol.org",
      "id": "display_300x250"
    },
    "assets": {
      "banner_image": {
        "url": "https://cdn.novabrands.example.com/hero.jpg",
        "width": 300,
        "height": 250
      },
      "headline": {
        "content": "Nutrition dogs love"
      }
    }
  },
  "feature_ids": ["ai_generated", "ai_modified", "ai_confidence"]
}

Agent returns detection results

{
  "results": [
    { "feature_id": "ai_generated", "value": true, "confidence": 0.94 },
    { "feature_id": "ai_modified", "value": false },
    { "feature_id": "ai_confidence", "value": 0.94 }
  ],
  "detail_url": "https://detector.example.com/reports/ctx_xyz789"
}

Seller applies enforcement logic

The seller compares the detection result against the buyer’s provenance claim:

const provenance = creative.manifest.provenance;
const detection = await detectionAgent.getCreativeFeatures({
  creative_manifest: creative.manifest,
  feature_ids: ['ai_generated']
});

if (detection.errors) {
  // Detection failed - handle based on policy
  return;
}

const aiDetected = detection.results.find(
  f => f.feature_id === 'ai_generated'
);
const claimsDisclosureCarveout =
  ['edited', 'directed'].includes(provenance?.human_oversight) &&
  provenance?.disclosure?.required === false;

// Case 1: Provenance claims non-AI, detection says AI
if (
  provenance?.digital_source_type === 'digital_capture' &&
  aiDetected?.value === true &&
  aiDetected?.confidence > 0.9
) {
  // Reject - provenance claim contradicts detection
  return;
}

// Case 2: AI content with a declared editorial-responsibility carve-out
if (
  aiDetected?.value === true &&
  claimsDisclosureCarveout
) {
  // Accept or continue review; retain audit_observations[] for audit routing
  recordAuditObservations(detection.audit_observations ?? []);
  return;
}

// Case 3: AI content without disclosure metadata or a carve-out claim
if (
  aiDetected?.value === true &&
  !provenance?.disclosure?.required
) {
  // Reject - AI content without required disclosure metadata
  return;
}

Multi-agent evaluation

AI detection fits naturally into the multi-agent creative governance pattern. A seller evaluating a creative can call multiple specialist agents in parallel:

Agent	Features	Provenance relevance
Security scanner	`auto_redirect`, `cloaking`	None — independent concern
AI detection	`ai_generated`, `ai_modified`	Verifies provenance claims
Content categorizer	`iab_casinos_gambling`	None — independent concern
Creative quality	`brand_consistency`	None — independent concern

The orchestrator calls all agents via get_creative_features, aggregates results, and applies its requirements across all of them. AI detection is one column in the evaluation matrix, not a separate workflow.

Content standards integration

For publisher content (artifacts), provenance verification uses the content standards infrastructure: calibrate_content for alignment and validate_content_delivery for auditing.

Artifact provenance

Publishers declare provenance on artifacts the same way buyers declare it on creatives:

{
  "property_id": { "type": "domain", "value": "newssite.example.com" },
  "artifact_id": "article_trends_2026",
  "provenance": {
    "digital_source_type": "digital_creation",
    "declared_by": { "role": "platform" }
  },
  "assets": [
    {
      "type": "text",
      "role": "title",
      "content": "Industry trends to watch in 2026"
    },
    {
      "type": "image",
      "url": "https://cdn.newssite.example.com/ai-illustration.jpg",
      "alt_text": "Conceptual illustration",
      "provenance": {
        "digital_source_type": "trained_algorithmic_media",
        "ai_tool": { "name": "Midjourney", "version": "v7" },
        "declared_by": { "role": "platform" }
      }
    }
  ]
}

Calibration for AI provenance

During calibrate_content, the verification agent can evaluate whether artifact provenance claims are accurate. This uses the same calibration dialogue as brand suitability — the verification agent returns verdicts with explanations:

{
  "verdict": "fail",
  "explanation": "The article's hero image shows strong indicators of AI generation (GAN artifacts, inconsistent lighting) but is marked as digital_creation. The provenance claim does not match detection results.",
  "features": [
    {
      "feature_id": "provenance_accuracy",
      "status": "failed",
      "explanation": "Image asset provenance claims digital_creation but AI detection confidence is 0.92."
    },
    {
      "feature_id": "brand_safety",
      "status": "passed",
      "explanation": "No safety concerns with the content itself."
    }
  ]
}

Post-delivery validation

Buyers can audit AI provenance in delivered content through validate_content_delivery, the same task used for brand suitability auditing:

{
  "standards_id": "acme_ai_disclosure_policy",
  "records": [
    {
      "record_id": "imp_54321",
      "media_buy_id": "mb_acme_q1",
      "artifact": {
        "property_id": { "type": "domain", "value": "newssite.example.com" },
        "artifact_id": "article_trends_2026",
        "provenance": {
          "digital_source_type": "digital_creation",
          "declared_by": { "role": "platform" }
        },
        "assets": [
          {
            "type": "image",
            "url": "https://cdn.newssite.example.com/ai-illustration.jpg"
          }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

Compliance profiles

Different regulatory environments require different levels of provenance enforcement. Here are example configurations.

{
  "profile": "eu_strict",
  "creative_policy": {
    "provenance_required": true
  },
  "enforcement_rules": {
    "ai_detection_required": true,
    "ai_detection_confidence_threshold": 0.85,
    "disclosure_required_for": [
      "trained_algorithmic_media",
      "composite_with_trained_algorithmic_media",
      "human_edits"
    ],
    "reject_on_mismatch": true,
    "jurisdictions": [
      {
        "country": "DE",
        "regulation": "eu_ai_act_article_50",
        "label_text": "KI-generiert"
      },
      {
        "country": "FR",
        "regulation": "eu_ai_act_article_50",
        "label_text": "Contenu généré par l'IA"
      }
    ]
  }
}

{
  "profile": "us_california",
  "creative_policy": {
    "provenance_required": true
  },
  "enforcement_rules": {
    "ai_detection_required": true,
    "ai_detection_confidence_threshold": 0.90,
    "disclosure_required_for": [
      "trained_algorithmic_media",
      "composite_with_trained_algorithmic_media"
    ],
    "reject_on_mismatch": true,
    "jurisdictions": [
      {
        "country": "US",
        "region": "CA",
        "regulation": "ca_sb_942",
        "label_text": "Created with AI"
      }
    ]
  }
}

{
  "profile": "permissive",
  "creative_policy": {
    "provenance_required": false
  },
  "enforcement_rules": {
    "ai_detection_required": false,
    "log_provenance_if_present": true,
    "reject_on_mismatch": false
  }
}

These profiles are illustrative configurations, not schema-defined objects. Each seller implements enforcement logic suited to their regulatory requirements. The AdCP schemas provide the data model; the enforcement rules are implementation decisions.

For regulators

AdCP provides a machine-readable, protocol-level mechanism for AI disclosure in programmatic advertising. Every creative and content artifact in the supply chain can carry structured provenance metadata that declares the digital source type, the AI tools used, the level of human oversight, and the applicable disclosure requirements by jurisdiction — including specific regulation identifiers such as eu_ai_act_article_50, ca_sb_942, and cn_deep_synthesis. This metadata uses the IPTC digital source type vocabulary, the same classification system adopted by C2PA Content Credentials, Meta, and Google for AI content labeling. AdCP does not invent a new taxonomy. It carries an existing, widely adopted one through the advertising supply chain where it has not previously been available in structured form.

Verification is independent, not self-reported

Provenance in AdCP is explicitly a claim, not a certification. The declaring party — typically the advertiser or their agency — attaches provenance when submitting a creative. The enforcing party — typically the publisher or their supply-side platform — verifies that claim independently using AI detection services, C2PA manifest validation, or both. This verification happens through existing AdCP governance mechanisms (get_creative_features for creatives, calibrate_content for publisher content) and does not require new infrastructure. This architecture addresses a structural problem in advertising compliance: the party submitting the creative has an incentive to understate AI involvement (to avoid placement restrictions or disclosure requirements), while the party publishing the creative bears the regulatory liability for non-disclosure. By treating provenance as a verifiable claim rather than a trusted assertion, the protocol ensures that compliance does not depend on the good faith of any single participant.

Mapping to regulatory requirements

EU AI Act Article 50: Imposes obligations on the providers of generative AI systems (Art 50(2)) and on the deployers who put AI-generated content into circulation (Art 50(4)), with a user-facing disclosure obligation at first exposure (Art 50(5)). The deployer in an advertising flow is typically the advertiser or agency, not the publisher. AdCP carries the machine-readable signals that make Article 50 evidence operable — digital_source_type classifies AI involvement at the asset level, disclosure.jurisdictions carries jurisdiction-specific label text and render guidance, and human_oversight records the level of human involvement relevant to the Art 50(4) editorial-responsibility carve-out. Enforcement points can filter or flag creatives based on digital_source_type values that indicate AI generation (trained_algorithmic_media, composite_with_trained_algorithmic_media). The protocol does not perform the regulatory analysis or determine which party is the deployer. California SB 942: Imposes disclosure obligations on covered platforms (defined by MAU threshold) when content is generated or substantially modified by AI. The digital_source_type and human_oversight fields carry the factual signals the covered party uses to make its disclosure determination, and disclosure.required carries the declaring party’s resulting claim. The flag is a declared signal in the supply chain — useful as a routing and audit input — not a substitute for the covered party’s own analysis. A seller relying on disclosure.required: false without verification is relying on the buyer’s claim, not a determination the protocol made. Platform mandates (Meta, Google, TikTok): Major platforms already require AI content labeling using IPTC-aligned metadata. AdCP’s provenance structure is directly compatible with these requirements because it uses the same underlying vocabulary. AdCP does not determine which regulations apply to a given creative. It provides the structured metadata that allows each enforcement point to apply its own jurisdictional rules. The protocol carries the data; the enforcing party makes the compliance decision.

Verification flow

Implementation checklist

Buyers (brands and agencies)

Requirement	Description
Attach provenance to creatives	Set `provenance` on `creative-asset` or `creative-manifest` when submitting via `sync_creatives`
Classify AI involvement	Use the correct `digital_source_type` for each creative and asset
Declare AI tooling	Populate `ai_tool` when AI systems were used in production
Set human oversight level	Indicate `human_oversight` when AI is involved
Declare disclosure obligations	Populate `disclosure.jurisdictions` for each applicable regulation
Preserve C2PA references	Include `c2pa.manifest_url` when content credentials exist
Use transcoding-resilient declarations	When the pipeline includes intermediaries that transcode or re-encode assets, attach `embedded_provenance[]` and/or `watermarks[]` rather than relying on `c2pa.manifest_url` alone
Represent the verifier from the seller’s allowlist	Populate `verify_agent.agent_url` on `embedded_provenance[]` / `watermarks[]` entries with a value drawn from the product’s `creative_policy.accepted_verifiers[].agent_url`. Off-list URLs are rejected without an outbound call
Read seller requirements upfront	Inspect `creative_policy.provenance_required`, `creative_policy.provenance_requirements`, and `creative_policy.accepted_verifiers` from `get_products` and pre-flight your creative shape before calling `sync_creatives`
Handle rejection codes	Treat `PROVENANCE_REQUIRED`, `PROVENANCE_*_MISSING`, `PROVENANCE_VERIFIER_NOT_ACCEPTED`, and `PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED` as machine-readable correctable errors — auto-retry without correction will not pass
Run pre-submission detection	Optionally attach `verification` results from your own detection services

Sellers (publishers and platforms)

Requirement	Description
Set creative policy	Add `provenance_required: true` to `creative-policy` if provenance is required
Publish field-level requirements	Set `provenance_requirements.require_*` flags for fields you intend to enforce — buyers read these from `get_products` and self-correct before submission
Publish accepted verifiers	Populate `creative_policy.accepted_verifiers[]` with the governance agents you operate or have allowlisted. Buyers’ `verify_agent` references MUST be a canonicalized match of one of these `agent_url` values
Enforce structural requirements	Reject `sync_creatives` submissions that omit any required field with the matching `PROVENANCE_*` error code (per-creative `errors[]`, `error.field` pointing at the missing path)
Cross-check `verify_agent` before calling	Confirm the buyer’s `verify_agent.agent_url` is on `accepted_verifiers` (canonicalized) before any outbound call. Off-list URLs MUST be rejected with `PROVENANCE_VERIFIER_NOT_ACCEPTED` and never called
Run AI detection	Call `get_creative_features` against the on-list governance agent that matches the buyer’s representation (or one you select from `accepted_verifiers` if the buyer omits `verify_agent`)
Compare claims vs detection	Implement logic to compare `digital_source_type` against `ai_generated` feature results
Reject contradictions	Use `PROVENANCE_CLAIM_CONTRADICTED` with `error.details` limited to `{ agent_url, feature_id, claimed_value, observed_value, confidence }` (and `substituted_for` when you called an on-list agent other than the one the buyer nominated)
Record audit observations	Preserve `get_creative_features.audit_observations[]` for downstream audit routing; do not reject solely because `OVERSIGHT_DISCLOSURE_CARVEOUT_CLAIMED` is present
Enforce disclosure	Verify that AI content includes appropriate `disclosure` metadata for target jurisdictions
Declare artifact provenance	Attach `provenance` to content artifacts submitted via content standards

Creative agents

Requirement	Description
Attach provenance to generated content	When `build_creative` generates AI content, attach provenance with `digital_source_type`, `ai_tool`, and `human_oversight`
Set `declared_by` role to `tool`	Creative agents that attach provenance should identify themselves with role `tool`
Carry through C2PA	If source assets have C2PA manifests, carry the reference through to the generated manifest

Governance agents (AI detection)

Requirement	Description
Declare detection features	Advertise `ai_generated` and related features via `get_adcp_capabilities`
Implement `get_creative_features`	Accept creative manifests and return detection results
Return confidence scores	Include `confidence` on detection results for probabilistic assessments
Surface audit-worthy carve-out claims	Emit `audit_observations[]` with `OVERSIGHT_DISCLOSURE_CARVEOUT_CLAIMED` when `human_oversight` is `edited` or `directed` and `disclosure.required` is `false`
Provide detail URLs	Link to full reports via `detail_url` for audit trails

AI provenance and disclosure — The provenance schema reference, digital source type enum, and inheritance model
Creative Governance — Feature-based creative evaluation via get_creative_features
get_creative_features — Task reference for creative feature evaluation
Content Standards — Privacy-preserving brand suitability for publisher content
calibrate_content — Calibration task for content standards alignment
validate_content_delivery — Post-delivery content validation

Getting Started

Building with AdCP

Protocol

FAQ

Trust & Security

Reference

Certification

Provenance verification

Three-moment lifecycle

What buyers can declare

The verifier contract: seller publishes, buyer represents, seller confirms

What sellers can require

Rejection error codes

Audit observations, not rejections

AI detection via get_creative_features

Agent declares AI detection capabilities

Seller evaluates a creative

Agent returns detection results

Seller applies enforcement logic

Multi-agent evaluation

Content standards integration

Artifact provenance

Calibration for AI provenance

Post-delivery validation

Compliance profiles

For regulators

Verification is independent, not self-reported

Mapping to regulatory requirements

Verification flow

Implementation checklist

Buyers (brands and agencies)

Sellers (publishers and platforms)

Creative agents

Governance agents (AI detection)

​Three-moment lifecycle

​What buyers can declare

​The verifier contract: seller publishes, buyer represents, seller confirms

​What sellers can require

​Rejection error codes

​Audit observations, not rejections

​AI detection via get_creative_features

​Agent declares AI detection capabilities

​Seller evaluates a creative

​Agent returns detection results

​Seller applies enforcement logic

​Multi-agent evaluation

​Content standards integration

​Artifact provenance

​Calibration for AI provenance

​Post-delivery validation

​Compliance profiles

​For regulators

​Verification is independent, not self-reported

​Mapping to regulatory requirements

​Verification flow

​Implementation checklist

​Buyers (brands and agencies)

​Sellers (publishers and platforms)

​Creative agents

​Governance agents (AI detection)

​Related

Three-moment lifecycle

What buyers can declare

The verifier contract: seller publishes, buyer represents, seller confirms

What sellers can require

Rejection error codes

Audit observations, not rejections

AI detection via get_creative_features

Agent declares AI detection capabilities

Seller evaluates a creative

Agent returns detection results

Seller applies enforcement logic

Multi-agent evaluation

Content standards integration

Artifact provenance

Calibration for AI provenance

Post-delivery validation

Compliance profiles

For regulators

Verification is independent, not self-reported

Mapping to regulatory requirements

Verification flow

Implementation checklist

Buyers (brands and agencies)

Sellers (publishers and platforms)

Creative agents

Governance agents (AI detection)

Related