Four of the six content labels describe what happened to a piece of work: whether a machine was involved in making it, and how much. Two of them describe something different, a person. Those two, Human Authored and Human Approved, are the ones teams get wrong, because on the surface they sound like the same reassuring claim. They are not, and the difference is exactly the thing a newsroom, an agency or a studio has to get right.
What each one actually says
Human Authored is a claim about creation. In the platform's own words, it covers human-created text, photographs, artworks, musical compositions, recordings or videos without a defining AI contribution, where the author is identified through qualified identification. It is the person who made the work saying: I made this, a machine did not do the defining part, and here is my verified identity behind that claim.
Human Approved is a claim about review. Again in the platform's words, it covers complete content that has been reviewed, finalised and approved by an identified person before publication, for example a manuscript, a corporate communication, a social-media post, an image, audio or video. It is not about who made the work. It is about someone with a name and a verified identity looking at the finished thing and putting their sign-off on it.
The difference in one line
Human Authored answers who made it. Human Approved answers who checked it. A newsroom needs to know which question it is actually answering, because they are not interchangeable and they do not protect against the same thing.
Which one a newsroom needs
Consider how work moves through a newsroom. A journalist writes a piece. An editor reads it, corrects it, and decides it is fit to publish. Those are two different acts by two different people, and the two labels map onto them almost exactly.
If the point you want on the record is that a named journalist wrote the piece and no machine did the defining work, that is Human Authored, and the journalist is the identified person behind it.
If the point you want on the record is that a responsible editor reviewed the finished piece and approved it for publication, that is Human Approved, and the editor is the identified person behind it. This is the label that matters when the question later is not who wrote it but who signed off on it, which in a newsroom is frequently the question that carries the weight.
Many pieces genuinely warrant both marks, applied by the two different people they refer to. What you should not do is treat them as one interchangeable stamp, because a review sign-off is not an authorship claim, and an authorship claim is not a review sign-off.
Which one an agency or a studio needs
The same split applies with different names on the roles. In an agency, a designer or copywriter authors; an account lead or a client approves. In a studio, a creator makes the work; a producer or a rights owner signs it off. The useful habit is to stop asking which label sounds most impressive and start asking a plainer question: for this specific piece, is the claim I need to be able to make about who created it, or about who approved it?
Whichever it is, the label carries weight only because the person behind it is identified through a verified identity. A sign-off from nobody in particular proves nothing. A sign-off from a named, verified person is the thing worth having on the record.
The plain version
Human Authored is the maker's claim. Human Approved is the reviewer's claim. Pick the one that matches the act you actually need to stand behind, use both when both acts really happened, and remember that either only means something because a verified person is standing behind it.
