SenseDefend

Synthetic-media instruments, by article and effective date

Microsoft Designer on exactly which images carry the credentials

A named part of a product is a better claim than a whole product, because a reader can sort their own files by it. This cell records the scope clause as the substance, not as a qualifier. As of 2026-09-22.

A scope clause a reader can sort their own files byWith a named part of a product, somebody holding a folder of assets can ask which came out of those features and get an answer. Given only a claim that the service applies provenance, the same reader can ask nothing useful.Where did this image come from?The named editing featuresCredentials, per the pageThe claim covers all images created thatway, with no version or tierAnywhere else in the productUnaddressed, and known to beA reader knows to check rather than assumingeither answerThe boundary is the useful half of the sentence
Fig. 1 A narrower sentence that can be applied beats a broader one that cannot.
Microsoft Designer on the stated scope column, and what that column leaves open. Recorded 2026-09-22.
PointWhat the record holds
Stated scopeAll images created with the named editing features
Read fromA support FAQ answering where the metadata comes from
What it does not settleWhat a template, an import or a share produces

Inclusion rule. One cell of this generator's entry, quoted from the page the entry names. Coverage, commentary and third-hand summaries are not admitted, in either direction. Order. Fixed order: the cell, the page it came off, then the limit on reading it.

1Sorting files by a scope clause is the point of having one

A reader with a folder of assets can ask which of these came out of the editing features and get an answer. Given only a claim that the service applies provenance, the same reader can ask nothing useful at all.

That is why the record quotes scope rather than compressing it. A narrower sentence that can be applied beats a broader one that cannot, and this is the narrowest in the register.

2The marking paragraph has its own scope problem

The clause exempts assistive standard editing that does not substantially alter its input. An editing feature is precisely the category that phrase is reaching for, and nothing says where standard ends and generative begins.

So a scope tied to editing features sits directly on the fault line in the text. The record notes the collision and does not resolve it, because resolving it is not a documentation question.

3What is outside the scope is known to be outside

Anything produced by another part of the product is unaddressed here, and being unaddressed is a usable state. A reader knows to check rather than assuming either way, which is more than a broad claim would give them.

The register keeps the boundary visible for that reason. An entry that looked complete would hide the one thing this page is unusually good at saying.

  • Microsoft Designer (microsoft.com)
    Content credentials, provenance based on the C2PA standard, are applied to all images created with the editing featuresan image generation and editing toolMicrosoft Support, Designer FAQ / recorded 2026-09-22
  • Article 50(2)
    Machine-readable marking does not apply to assistive standard editing that does not substantially alter the inputsecond exemptionAI Act Explorer, Article 50 / recorded 2026-09-12

4Sources

Wording taken from the support FAQ at support.microsoft.com, consulted 2026-09-22. All four rows for this generator sit on Microsoft Designer; the same column across every entry is read down on The fourth row. Filed beside it: ElevenLabs on models it did not train, SynthID on a family of products.