Resource contribution: where should affiliation disclosures go? #1152

The README's resource reference documents title, date, link, optional thumbnailurl, and type in a Markdown file under src/site/resources. Before proposing a future Jamstack-focused article, I would like to clarify where author/project affiliation and optional paid-feature disclosures should live, without introducing an unsupported front-matter key.

For context, I help promote ASCII Art Generator: https://asciiartgenerator.online/. Its core browser tools are free, while optional AI rendering uses an account and paid credits. This identifies my relationship to the product; its homepage is not being offered as a learning resource, and I am not asserting that the product's deployment architecture is Jamstack.

If a future educational resource mentions an associated tool as an optional example, would the preferred approach be:

• put a clear affiliation statement and relevant paid-feature distinction in the article itself;
• repeat the relationship in the pull-request description so reviewers can assess it;
• keep the resource front matter exactly within the documented schema, rather than inventing a sponsored, author_affiliation, or similar property?

Is there an existing contributor convention for that placement, or an excerpt style that should make the relationship visible in the resource listing too? I would follow the existing convention rather than add a new field or imply independent endorsement.

This is a disclosure-format question, distinct from whether a particular browser-export example belongs in the resource collection. It is not a resource submission, an already-written Jamstack tutorial, a deployment claim, a bug report, or a request to list the product automatically. Drafted with AI assistance.