Keep policy assumptions in a dated evidence register and schedule reviews before they affect access, budgets or publication. A saved project plan should not be treated as proof that provider terms still match its original assumptions.
Create the 2026-10-29 evidence snapshot
Record these bounded facts separately. Lovable documents role-based project access, including Admin, Editor and Viewer, with role availability and external-collaborator controls varying by plan and workspace settings.
Make states that non-AI apps generally use one credit per operation, while AI features can vary by connection type and token or other usage factors.
Runway states that, as between the user and Runway, users retain ownership and rights to uploaded and generated content. It also says generations have no Runway-imposed non-commercial restriction and require no formal credit. This is not a conclusion about every input, person or third-party right involved in a project.
Put reviews on a dated calendar
Use this editorial calendar, adjusting it to project risk:
- 29 October 2026: capture the evidence baseline, reviewer and affected project assumptions.
- 5 November 2026: verify collaborator needs against the applicable access arrangement.
- 29 November 2026: revisit Make usage assumptions and connection paths.
- 29 December 2026: review rights questions before the next planned publication.
- 29 January 2027: obtain an overall project-plan reapproval.
Each review record should include source, checked date, relevant passage, uncertainty, owner and action deadline. These are suggested internal dates, not provider notice schedules.
Define event-driven reapproval triggers
Do not wait for the calendar if an external collaborator joins, the workspace arrangement changes, an AI connection changes or content is proposed for a new audience.
For access, ask whether the required role is available under the relevant settings. For usage, ask whether the existing estimate still matches the feature and connection. For rights, ask whether input permissions, consent and the intended use require further review. Seek qualified advice where needed rather than treating a provider statement as comprehensive legal clearance.
Evaluate a hypothetical campaign change
Suppose a fictional Mumbai studio planned an internal video demonstration but now wants a public client campaign. Its register contains the Runway passage, but no evidence addressing consent for the proposed inputs.
Stop publication approval until those questions are reviewed. The issue is an incomplete project evidence record, not an invented claim that Runway prohibits the campaign.
If procurement changes too, check the AI tools catalog for access format and saved terms before buying. Marketplace account, code or token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Lovable sharing, Make credits and Runway usage rights establish the bounded statements above. The calendar, triggers and review questions are editorial advice, not legal conclusions or guaranteed change notifications.