Methodological Note on AI Use in the Writing of « E-Invoicing in Europe: Five Strategic Shifts Behind the 2027 Mandate »
In the writing of this article, the following AI-based tools were used to support the drafting, structuring, and editing process. This note is provided in the interest of transparency, methodological rigour, and academic integrity.
1. Tools used
-
Claude (Anthropic): used as a conversational writing and analytical support tool
- Grammarly: used for grammar, spelling, and stylistic revision in English
2. How the tools were used
Claude was used at several stages of the writing process:
- Structuring the article. After attending the VivaTech roundtable, I organised my raw notes and reflections into thematic clusters. Claude helped me identify a coherent narrative structure (the « five strategic shifts » framework) that best captured the substance of the panel discussion while producing a distinctive angle compared to similar journalistic coverage of the event.
- Refining arguments and clarifying complex regulatory concepts. Certain technical topics discussed at the roundtable required careful explanation for a broad professional audience. Claude was used as a sparring partner to test whether my formulations were clear, accurate, and appropriately nuanced.
- Iterative editing and language polish. Draft versions of each section were reviewed for tone, coherence, and readability. Claude offered suggestions on phrasing, transitions, and paragraph flow. All final editorial decisions were made by me.
- Verification of speaker attributions and figures. Where uncertainty arose about specific data points shared during the roundtable, such as investment figures, transaction volumes, or the geographic scope of Visa’s commitments, Claude helped me formulate targeted verification questions, which were then addressed directly with the panel organiser (Sébastien Imbert, Banqup) and speakers to ensure factual accuracy.
Grammarly was used at the final revision stage to identify and correct grammar, spelling, and stylistic inconsistencies in English, my second working language.
3. What these tools contributed
The combination of Claude and Grammarly enabled me to:
- Produce a more coherent editorial structure than I would have developed working alone under the same time constraint
- Refine my English prose to a professional editorial standard, appropriate for a business-oriented professional audience
- Verify and cross-check my understanding of technical regulatory content, reducing the risk of factual errors
4. Planning and organisation
The overall research and writing process was organised as follows:
- Attendance at the VivaTech roundtable (June 2026) — with real-time note-taking
- Initial reflection and clustering of key themes (independently)
- Structuring the article into five strategic shifts
- First draft — written independently
- Iterative editing — sections reviewed with Claude for clarity, coherence, and flow
- Verification and fact-checking with the panel organiser and speakers (Sébastien Imbert, Audrey Chabin)
- Integration of external feedback — from speakers, including precise corrections to specific figures
- Final language and grammar review — using Grammarly
- Publication — on LinkedIn