Explaining the help behind the result

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

I posted the recipe with a photograph of the finished bread and called it my family loaf. A reader asked whether I had developed it myself. My grandfather had supplied the basic quantities, my sister had tested a version in her smaller oven, and I had written the instructions after watching both of them. The phrase on the page did not explain those different kinds of work.

I added a short account of each contribution and checked that they were happy to be named. That did not make the recipe three separate recipes. It made the shared one easier to describe accurately. My instructions still needed corrections when readers asked questions. Giving credit did not relieve me of that responsibility; it stopped the photograph and my name from suggesting that every useful step had begun with me.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The quilt exhibition label named me as the maker. I had designed and sewn the panels, but a friend had arranged their order when my first layout looked unbalanced. Another had lent the frame on which we finished the last seams. Visitors could not infer either contribution from looking at the completed quilt.

I asked the organisers to add those roles, after checking with both friends. The label did not claim that every helper had done the same amount or kind of work. It explained the particular help that had changed or enabled the result. I remained responsible for the stitching visitors could examine. Acknowledging other hands made the account more precise without requiring my own work to disappear.

Both texts describe the ways the contributors’ work is acknowledged.

What similarities do the ways the contributors’ work is acknowledged share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.