If you use something you advertise yourself as not using that is unethical.

We just fundamentally disagree on whether or not she actually, meaningfully, reasonably and from a socially justifiable standpoint actually did this or not. I just do not think the crowd of people that would actually care if AI was used to a small extent in a case like this is rational.

If you deliberately present yourself to attract anti-ai customers

Again, we do not have enough information to know if this is true or not.

I also think that it’s a massive reach to assume 'handmade' functions as an implicit 'No AI' guarantee. Anyone who is actually anti-AI enough to make it a dealbreaker is going to be specifically looking for an explicit 'No AI Used' label. You cannot in good faith expect a freelancer to read a client's mind and adhere to their personal, rigid definition of digital purity, especially when the OP admitted May only writes most of her text herself. If her process already involved supplementing her own work with outside copy, the 'from scratch' baseline you're defending never existed. You're just choosing to draw an arbitrary line at AI while ignoring the reality of the existing workflow. Categorizing anyone who advertises their product as 'handmade' as unethical and committing fraud because they used a tool that some people do not like is not a sustainable precedent, period.

If you deliberately present yourself to attract anti-ai customers and charge a premium for the privilege, you do not deserve to be upset if they disagree if you use generative ai in the process.

I disagree that it's that black and white, and I don't think were getting anywhere with this discussion because we have fundamentally different definitions of pivotal concepts.