Thanks to everyone for their input. I have been editing the draft in direct response, as you'll have seen.
Moritz would like to make it non-LLM-specific, and helpfully offered some concrete wording. But I think we really do need something that tackles LLMs head on. (I tried to say "we value the contribution, regardless of how it was produced", although I know that is not really satisfying to you.)
Moritz thanks for the "no right to review" draft. I adapted it to give it a more positive spin -- see under "Human conversation".
Some would like a briefer policy, and I see merit in brevity. But there is a lot of nuance here, as we can see in the debate, and my (fairly strong) preference is to value clarity, precision, and explicitness over length.
I'm grateful that a few people with strong opinions have generously said (I am paraphrasing) "It's not what I really want, but it's a reasonable basis to move forward". That's what I meant about disagreeing agreeably. We all truly want to work together, even though our views differ.
We may well want to iterate the draft in the light of experience.
I think we may have reached the point of diminishing returns, where we can freeze the wording for now. Would you like to take a last look at the current state, and say if there are any drafting changes you'd like to make?
Thanks!
Simon