AI or plagiarism indicator raised a concern? A fair review routine

An integrity indicator should start a careful review, not decide the case. A similarity match or AI-content flag does not, on its own, establish that a learner broke assessment rules, who wrote a passage or what the learner intended. Assessors should check the underlying evidence, follow their organisation’s and awarding body’s procedures, and give the learner a fair opportunity to respond before any decision is made.

This distinction matters because a report is one piece of information, not a substitute for judgement. Ofqual’s April 2026 advice note discusses how awarding organisations can apply existing requirements to AI-related malpractice risks; it is advice about those existing requirements, not a new statutory rule. Always follow the relevant assessment and malpractice procedures for your qualification and organisation. Read Ofqual’s AI malpractice and assessment advice note.

A practical review routine

1. Read the work and the evidence behind the flag

Start with the submitted work itself. For a similarity concern, open the matched source and compare the specific passages: are they identical, properly quoted, referenced, common wording, or a close paraphrase? A percentage alone cannot tell you whether a match is acceptable or significant.

For an AI indicator, examine the passage identified and consider it alongside the assignment and other relevant evidence. A detector’s output should not be treated as proof of authorship or intent. Avoid turning a style impression, a tool score or a single unusual phrase into a conclusion.

2. Check the rules and relevant context

Before contacting the learner, check the instructions they received for this assessment: what uses of AI or other sources were permitted, and what acknowledgement was required? Confirm which policy and escalation route apply. Rules can differ by qualification, task and institution, so do not assume that an indicator automatically means a breach.

Then consider relevant context fairly. A source match might be a correctly referenced quotation or wording from course materials. A change in writing style may have an innocent explanation. Context does not prove or disprove a concern by itself; it helps frame the questions that need answering.

3. Raise the concern neutrally and invite a response

If the concern remains, refer it through the appropriate process. Explain what prompted the review in specific, neutral terms—for example, identify the passage and the matched source, or the section the tool flagged. Give the learner a reasonable opportunity to explain their process and provide relevant material, such as notes, drafts, sources or an explanation of how they used permitted tools.

Do not present an indicator as a verdict or pressure the learner to prove a negative. Record their response and consider it alongside the evidence. If the organisation’s procedure requires a trained investigator, academic integrity lead or awarding body to take over, refer the matter rather than making an informal finding outside your role.

4. Record the reasoning and follow the formal outcome process

Keep a concise record of what was reviewed, which policy applied, what the learner was asked, their response, and why the concern was closed or escalated. Distinguish observed facts from interpretations. If evidence is inconclusive, say so; do not overstate what the indicator can establish.

Any decision and any resulting action should be made by the person or panel authorised under the relevant procedure, with the learner’s available review or appeal route explained as required. This is a general practice guide, not a replacement for local policy or awarding-body rules.

A short example

An assessor sees a high similarity result on a written assignment. Rather than treating the number as a finding, they inspect the matched passages. One is a properly cited definition; another closely follows a web article without clear attribution. The assessor checks the brief and applicable policy, records the passages and source, and refers the specific concern through the centre’s process. The learner is invited to explain and share relevant drafts or notes. The authorised reviewer then weighs all the evidence and documents the outcome. The score prompts the review; it does not determine it.

Use indicators as one part of human review

EduMark Integrity provides plagiarism and AI indicators to inform human review, with results alongside work in EduMark Studio. As with any indicator, reviewers should inspect the underlying passages and context rather than treating a report as proof of misconduct. Your organisation’s policies and the relevant qualification rules should govern how concerns are investigated and resolved.

For educators, the useful question is not simply “What did the tool flag?” but “What evidence supports this concern, what else could explain it, and what fair process applies?” Keeping those questions central helps make integrity reviews more careful, transparent and proportionate.