Generating an image and establishing the fact it depicts are different things. I reread replacement code and restyling records to separate atmospheric scenes from material conveying actual information. A convincing scene still needs its role explained.
The current replacement engine rejects generated declarations for documents, VR and logos and requires a decorative-photo disclosure. That is the contract for this replacement system. I use it to distinguish originals from explanatory scenes according to the reader’s decision, rather than expanding it into one universal image-production rule.
Begin with the question the image answers
An image introducing atmosphere differs from one used to inspect an actual building layout or product configuration. A scene may explain mood, while factual material needs agreement with its original. Names and descriptions should prevent those roles from blending into one attractive surface.
A new product-like image does not automatically establish the actual product’s shape, components or offering. Begin with the decision the visitor will make from it. Visual finish and information evidence are separate questions.
Preserve lines and wording in factual diagrams
The restyling record excludes applying photographic filters to drawings and information graphics. Fine lines, numbers and legends carry meaning. Altering them for atmosphere can change that meaning or legibility. These need different review criteria from decorative photography.
The current engine also rejects cover cropping for documents. Material whose layout, title and legend matter should not hide important regions. Original accuracy and complete on-screen presentation are separate required reviews.
Connect generation disclosure to the displayed material
A generation note in a working folder is invisible to visitors. Current code requires a disclosure for generated decorative material and inserts it into public HTML, connecting the role to the displayed page.
A useful disclosure distinguishes an explanatory scene from an actual place or customer case. It can explain the role beyond naming the tool. The presence of a note does not automatically approve rights or factual accuracy.
Automated checks depend on the declared role
The engine checks declared kind and generated values rather than recognizing an image as a plan or photograph. An incorrect role declaration is not automatically repaired by the code. Review the material’s role and public scope before recording that decision.
Six checks exercised the actual engine with synthetic declarations: rejection of generated document, VR and logo roles, missing decorative disclosure, disclosure in public HTML and document cover cropping. The synthetic SVG was a validator fixture, not an AI-generated creative.
Image replacement includes its explanation and connections
A replacement calls for alternative text, captions, sharing images and related links reviewed together. Removing an old name from pixels can leave it in an explanation. Public material should not transfer another project’s identities into the new website.
This blog does not transfer customer originals unchanged. It creates anonymous examples for implementation and records review of newly uploaded media. I also establish whether an image makes a factual claim and which material supports it.
Record production separately from evidence
This article draws on current material checks, preservation guidance, historical work records and six synthetic checks of the real engine. It does not report new generation or comprehensive reconciliation of historical generated files and rights records. Code conditions and additional original review remain distinguished.
The criterion preserves the role of the image. Atmospheric and explanatory scenes retain their description; factual decision material retains its evidence. Distinguishing roles within one screen addresses both visual effect and information responsibility.