I am trying really hard not to accuse you of not having read what you posted, because your conclusions are in strong tension with what it plainly says.

But there are no conclusions. It literally says:

> Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis

It says a plain prompt is not enough but that is not the reality of real software development. People aren't one-shotting complex business apps. The vast majority of software development will trivially pass that bar and end up in the "requires case by case analysis".