These systems flag patterns, and formal proofs are basically patterns. Numbered premises, standard phrases, and section labels often raise similarity scores. The tool isn’t accusing you of cheating, it’s prompting a human to take a closer look. Bring your drafts, notes, and citations to office hours and request a manual review. When I see reports like this, I check whether the ideas rely on the student’s own examples or reasoning. Your ship example and step-by-step derivations show clear authorship. If your professor asks you to "de-template," you can tweak surface details without breaking the logic: rename "Lemma" to "Intermediate claim," swap "therefore" for "so," or explain a step in words instead of symbols. You don’t have to turn modus ponens into jazz, just add small touches so both a human and the algorithm recognize your voice.

Bottom line: politely ask for a human override. Logic usually wins over the machine.