Prove the gain
Use a documented baseline, method, costs, assumptions, quality effects, and review period.
Subject 03 / Public-review draft
AI-created gains should be proven, governed, and shared.
Savings or productivity claims should not be accepted at face value. A credible benefit path starts with a documented baseline, protects workers and services, gives affected people decision authority, and leaves a public record of what happened.
Public review only. This draft does not prove that gains exist, authorize replacement harm, or imply endorsement of an implementing organization.
In plain language
The benefit clause in one minute
When AI creates measurable value, affected people should help decide how that value is used. The gain should be checked before it is claimed, and sharing a benefit should never erase labor, data, privacy, appeal, or service obligations.
Do not trade away rights
Preserve labor, data, privacy, appeal, human accountability, and service quality.
Share authority
Workers, students, service recipients, or communities help choose the benefit path.
Leave a public receipt
Show what was measured, decided, routed, delivered, limited, and reviewed.
Interactive benefit-claim test
Choose where the claim could break down.
Test the baseline, worker effects, decision authority, quality of the benefit, or public record before accepting public-benefit language.
01
Measurement baseline
Is the claimed gain real, additional, and measured against a credible starting point?
- What could go wrong?
- An implementing organization can overstate savings, ignore new costs, or count ordinary improvements as AI-created value.
- What proof is needed?
- A documented baseline, method, time period, assumptions, total costs, quality effects, and independent checking.
- Who needs protection?
- Affected people need access to the method and a way to challenge what was counted or left out.
- When should it pause?
- When the gain cannot be separated from cost cutting, service decline, transferred work, or unsupported assumptions.
Your focused review question
What evidence should be required before an organization can claim that AI created a shareable gain?Answer on this site
Formal public draft
Model clause under review
Status: public-review one-pager. This is a proposed accountability clause, not evidence that a particular deployment created value or delivered a benefit.
Core principle
When AI creates measurable productivity, cost, quality, access, or resilience gains, affected people should help govern how those gains are used.
Measure the gain
Use a documented baseline and method.
Disclose assumptions
Publish material assumptions, limitations, and risks.
Share governance
Give affected workers, students, service recipients, or community representatives authority over routing decisions.
Allocate a defined share
Route verified value into an approved benefit pathway.
Publish a receipt
Show measured value, governance decision, routed benefit, and review status without exposing sensitive data.
Preserve protections
Keep data rights, privacy, labor protections, appeal rights, and human accountability intact.
Possible benefit pathways
- Direct dividends
- Emergency aid
- Bill relief
- Student support
- Worker transition funds
- Training funds
- Service improvements
- Cooperative ownership
- Community resilience
- Ecological restoration
- Debt relief
- Public-benefit reinvestment
Proven gains
Value measured against a documented baseline and checked before being shared or claimed.
Governance authority
Affected people have defined decision power, not only a chance to comment.
Public receipt
A non-sensitive record of what was measured, decided, delivered, limited, and reviewed.
One focused contribution
What would make an AI benefit claim genuinely reviewable?
Name the baseline, decision right, protection, benefit quality, or public-record requirement the clause still needs.
Share feedback on this siteView the GitHub source record
GitHub is optional and public. Use it for a source edit or public issue discussion.