◇ Could this help me?
Yes for the three engineering measures, with the legal framing held loosely. Disclosing AI-generated content, gating model processing behind real consent, and keeping a tamper-evident generation log are defensible practices on their own merits and they map onto genuine EU AI Act transparency obligations around marking synthetic content. Discount the presentation around them: the acronym used for synthetically generated information is not standard regulatory language, the claim that a product became illegal overnight in every adopting jurisdiction is overstated, and scope and timing depend on what the product does and where it operates, so confirm applicability with a qualified professional rather than from a short video. This is a general practice.
Audit this application for AI transparency gaps. List every place the product shows a user content that a model generated and whether it is disclosed as such at the point of display. List every place user input is sent to a model and whether the user gave an explicit affirmative opt-in first. Then design a generation log that records, immutably, each output with its timestamp, the model used, and the input that triggered it, and tell me where in the code each log write would go.