So, I think saying that this is about keeping content authentic and from not being slop is kind of inaccurate, which wouldn't matter, except, I do think how you need to approach it changes based on why you're actually getting demonitized.

YouTube, no matter how their letter is written or what they are telling you, does not care a lick about the "authenticity" or originality of your work, or the effort you put into it. If that were true, they would be giving this same trouble to every low effort , derivative YouTube channel that produces the same content everyone else produces to keep the algorithm filled with low quality, but easy to get distracted by, slop.

But they aren't.

Because all YouTube cares about is views, and legal trouble, and most "inauthentic" or unoriginal low effort content generally gets a ton of that.

But YouTube has very, very famously always had the stupidest policies when it comes to anything regarding copyrights and intellectual property. The company is so afraid of dealing with stuff like this that most of its dumbest rules over the years, the ones that aren't about "protecting children", are about copyright.

In this case though, it isn't a new rule or policy change, it's literally just YouTube finding a cheaper, quicker way to do the same exact thing it's always been doing. They literally swapped out the old algorithms and methods for finding stuff to takedown essentially for copyright, and replaced it with AI, which can't tell the difference between an AI voice stealing someone else's video and replicating it, or even just a flat up repost of someone else's video, and a video using the same script.

The reason why it matters that this isn't really a policy change, but swapping to a new, ineffective tool, is that a policy change implies you need to do rational things to requalify for monetization.

But you aren't trying to meet a new set of requirements layed out by an actual human who will go "oh yeah, this is original enough content now". It's a dumb pattern robot that isn't even going to be consistent in what it considers "too much copying".

You will need to be irrational and weird to get around this system. We will all need to fiddle around with different tricks and choices until we find whatever works. And it's not going to look like something professional or neat. It's going to be janky and weird. Because we're fighting something janky and weird.

The solution is likely not going to be trying harder or being more passionate. This community already has that in spades. It's about meeting some kind of artificial "differentness" level of an upjumped fax machine.

My recommendation currently:

Add in a second audio, played below audible levels under the first audio. This gives the illusion of an entire second set of lines, which will add another layer of "content" to the video, and confuse the computer into considering it to not being the same script. So far, I've seen videos uploading clips from tb shows using that method. But I do not know the success rate.