Contributors should only put forth contributions that they could have created without the support of AI tooling.
I agree with that statement. Although I'd probably add reasonably to it. I do think it suffers from the same "very difficult to tell":
Is the intention that if a user does one of the things in "inappropriate use" that they're contribution would be rejected? These seem like extremely controversial suggestions to me, and also things that are very difficult to tell.
Out of curiosity, which of the inappropriate use cases listed do you find extremely controversial? I'm still operating under the premise that there is neither a right to have one's contribution reviewed, nor a right to have one's contribution included/merged. It's ultimately up to the core maintainers/folks with commit bits to decide if they deem a contribution inclusion worthy or not. Maybe this assumption is fundamentally flawed and just wrong?
Best,
Moritz