When Claude writes your release notes

chronik can hand a release note to Claude and send the summary instead of the original. This page says what that does, and — the part worth reading — when it puts an obligation on you.

This is not legal advice. It is a description of the product and a pointer at the rule, so you can decide whether the rule reaches you.

What chronik does

It is optional and off by default. No rule summarizes anything until somebody switches it on.
It runs on your own Anthropic key, stored on your account. The calls are on your bill and under your agreement with Anthropic, not ours.
The summary says it is one. A line under the text tells the reader a model wrote it, in the language you chose for the summary. If you left the language unchanged, the summary follows your release notes, and the line is in English: chronik can't tell which language your notes are written in. You can't switch that line off, and the reason is in the section after next.
We keep a record. Which model, which preset, and when — on our side, per delivery. A delivery that carried no summary records nothing, which is the record saying nothing synthetic went out.

When you have to mark it yourself

Marking the output is our job as the provider of it. Publishing the text is yours, and publishing can carry its own duty.

That duty applies when you publish a text that informs the public about a matter of public interest. The categories named include public health, environmental protection, consumer safety, public security and fundamental rights.

For almost all release notes the answer is no. A changelog for a library, an app or an internal tool is not a text about a matter of public interest, and nothing here changes that.

For some it is yes:

a security advisory that describes a vulnerability
a notice about an outage in a service other people depend on
software for health, energy, transport or public administration

If your release notes fall into one of those, the duty is yours and it is not satisfied by our line under the summary.

The exception, and how narrow it is

There's an exception for text that a human has reviewed and taken editorial responsibility for. It's narrower than it sounds.

A spelling, grammar or formatting check is explicitly not enough. What is required is a deliberate review of the content, by a competent, named person with real authority to reject the text. "Somebody had a look" is not that, and neither is approving a message because it read well.

Why the line cannot be switched off

We are the provider of the synthetic output, so marking it is our obligation. A switch that removed the marking would move our risk onto you — and it would get switched off, because a message reads better without it.

Keeping it means one thing you never have to think about.

Where to read the rule itself

The obligation is Article 50 of the EU AI Act. The European Commission publishes the text and its own FAQ. If you are unsure whether your release notes reach it, ask somebody qualified to answer that — this page can't, and would be doing you no favors by pretending otherwise.