## Problem / Motivation The module stores `editorial_responsibility` per entity and per language, and that value together with `human_review` decides the outcome in `ResolvedDisclosure::textRequirement()`. There is no way to show it to a reader. The component's props are `sentence`, `legal`, `summary`, `details_open`, `statement_lead`, `statement_text`, `statement_url`, `style`, `label_requirement`, `disclosure_modality`, `grade_id` and `icon`, plus a `description` slot, and none of them carries it. The value stays administrative, and a site that wants to state openly who takes responsibility for a piece of AI assisted content has to write it by hand somewhere else. **This issue does not argue that showing it is due.** [Article 50(4) of Reg. (EU) 2024/1689](https://ai-resources.eu/ai-act/testo/capo-04/#article-50) requires the text to be labelled: human review with editorial responsibility is a condition of the exemption, not information to be published. The [Commission Guidelines on the transparency obligations of Article 50](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems) (C(2026) 5054 final, content approved on 20 July 2026; policy page [here](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-transparency-ai-generated-content)), at point 136, ask that the person assuming editorial responsibility have publicly available contact details. That is a findability requirement at site level, not one of display next to a single piece of content, and the module already covers it with `statement_url`, the link to the site's editorial statement. The Guidelines are also non-binding (point 5). Point 140 refers to the notion of editorial responsibility in Article 2(8) of Reg. (EU) 2024/1083 (EMFA) as an interpretative reference. Summary in numbered points: [ai-resources.eu, Article 50 Guidelines](https://ai-resources.eu/soft-law/transparency-guidelines-art-50/). The [Commission's official Q&A](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/transparency-obligations-under-article-50-ai-act) defines editorial responsibility as ultimate legal responsibility over the publication, review included. The value of this feature is editorial, not regulatory: it lets a site be explicit where it finds that useful. It is also an affordance for the person filling the form, not a new duty. The field is already there and is already filled wherever the exemption is claimed, so what this issue decides is whether what an editor typed can be seen. An editor who never sees the value rendered has no way to tell what it is for. In line with #15, no reader facing string may suggest that Article 50(4) requires it. ## Proposed resolution - **Component**: a new optional prop for the editorial responsibility, `[string, 'null']`, NULL when the part is off, following the shape of the props already there. - **Visibility**: use the per grade mechanism introduced by #24, rather than adding a parallel configuration. - **Off by default.** The value can be the name of a natural person, and switching it on by default would publish it on every page without anyone having decided to. - **Introductory string**, translatable and neutral, along the lines of "Editorial responsibility: X", with no reference to the article and no wording that implies an obligation. - **Machine readable marking**: nothing added to the JSON-LD in this issue. The same caution applies, and there is no obvious property to use. - **No extra prompting in the widget.** The element must not become required, must not warn when it is empty, and must not nudge anyone into filling it in. Rendering the value is the whole of the help offered. - Tests: kernel coverage of how the visible part resolves, and a case asserting the prop stays NULL while the part is off. ## Out of scope - **Arguing that the value has to be visible.** Article 50(4) does not say so, and the findability requirement at point 136 is met at site level by the editorial statement page. - The format and the provenance of the value, which belong to the issue on the shared vocabulary. - The lapse of the attestation after a substantive AI intervention following the review, which the same Guidelines cover at point 136 and which concerns #14 and #25.