Typical disclaimer is now just common fodder for all papers and books. Any advice on a more original take to this generic statement would be appreciated!
Making the manuscript error-free is left as an exercise for the reader.
What is the point? If errors are due to factors other than those under ones own control, it should be mentioned (people are usually careful to protect their own names from problems they are not responsible for). Any unreferenced errors, ambiguities, misconceptions will clearly be labelled as the fault of the author by default.
Donald E. Knuth writes in the Preface of Volume 4A of his series The Art of Computer Programming:
I fear that [errors] lurk among the details collected here, and I want to correct them as soon as possible. Therefore I will cheerfully award $2.56 to the first finder of each technical, typographical, or historical error.
This is not novel but if there is a greater way to own up and ask for help, I don't know it. This assumes, of course, you want to know about errors and not just issue a blanket "my faul, duh" statement.
Incidentally, Knuth cites Christos H. Papadimitriou (Computational Complexity, 1994) just below; if you are in for a little snark:
Naturally, I am responsible for the remaining errors---although, in my opinions, my friends could have caught a few more.
I don't think it makes sense to copy such a statement (even as citation) to replace your own words. The best way is probably to be authentic and write what you think.
Usually, such a disclaimer appears when the author of the paper/book acknowledges some contribution from other persons that do not appear as authors, especially when (for papers) the referees are acknowledged for constructive comments and suggestions.
The polite way is to say "all remaining errors are my own".
The "heavy-weight professional" way is to say "the usual disclaimer applies".
A natural way to create a Catch-22 (a vicious circle) would be to state "to the best of my knowledge, this paper contains no further erors".
I find the increasing prevalence of this type of acknowledgement annoying. In political science, it seems like it is on almost every paper. Indeed, some authors have now switched to just writing "the usual disclaimer applies". Why I would need to acknowledge that I am responsible for (errors in) something I have authored continues to allude me. A novel (yet pleasantly classical) strategy would be to say nothing of this sort at all.