AIL 1.0.0 · Public proposal

Meaning deserves
more than a summary.

A machine-readable layer that lets authors express what they mean — and lets AI systems test whether that meaning is actually supported by the text.

AIL layered emblem
01 / DECLAREAuthor intent

What is meant

02 / GROUNDPublished text

What is expressed

03 / EVALUATEAI interpretation

What is understood

Intent ≠ ContentDeclarations are not evidence by themselves
Content ≠ TruthTextual support is not external verification
Interpretation ≠ CommandAI remains free to question the author
The problem

Between what we write and what machines repeat, meaning can drift.

AI increasingly mediates how people encounter articles, research and ideas. A summary may sound fluent while quietly weakening a claim, removing a qualification or attributing a conclusion the author never made.

✎
01 / AUTHOR

Intended meaning

The question, the central claim, the distinctions and the limits an author meant to communicate.

▤
02 / CONTENT

Expressed meaning

What the actual published text supports, qualifies, contradicts or leaves unanswered.

◇
03 / INTERPRETATION

Inferred meaning

What a reader or AI extracts — sometimes faithfully, sometimes incompletely or incorrectly.

The proposal

A semantic layer, not a script for AI.

AIL makes authorial claims inspectable. It does not instruct a model to agree, override the reader, suppress critique or certify the author's position as true.

Each declaration is connected to a document version and, where appropriate, exact passages. This makes disagreements visible and reviewable.

How AIL works →
article.intent.json1.0.0
{
  "intent": {
    "central_question":
      "What did the author mean?",
    "central_thesis": {
      "id": "T1",
      "text":
        "Meaning should be testable."
    }
  },
  "claims": [ /* anchored statements */ ],
  "verification": {
    "status": "not_run"
  }
}
Illustrative excerpt · see the complete, valid example in Schemas
Three independent questions

Clearer reading requires more than one test.

AIL distinguishes interpretation, support in the text and evidence beyond the text.

01

Interpretation fidelity

Did an AI preserve the author's central idea, qualifications and scope when summarising?

02

Intent–content alignment

Does the published article actually substantiate the intent it declares?

03

Claim–evidence grounding

Are factual claims supported by independent, relevant and credible evidence?

The browser validator in this release checks JSON structure, internal consistency and optional exact-quote matches. It does not pretend to perform all three semantic evaluations automatically.
A foundational statement

“The purpose is not to tell AI what to think, but to help it distinguish what the author intended, what the text actually says, and what the evidence allows us to conclude.”

Build on the proposal

One format. More transparent interpretations.

Read the specification, inspect the schema and test the first published example. AIL 1.0 is a public proposal open to technical scrutiny and independent evaluation.

Explore schemas →