For AI-era essay and report review

Stop guessing from the final essay.

See the writing process, AI-use declaration, and missing context before an integrity meeting starts.

Try the review consoleSee how evidence is captured
Case ACAP-042Review recommended

Market analysis report

Student identity redacted for LLM brief
Not an AI detector
42mactive writing
3,840typed chars
1,280pasted chars
2large paste events

Neutral review brief

  • Consent recorded before capture
  • Declaration attached
  • One large paste event needs context
  • Ask student how notes became final paragraphs
No detector scoreNo hidden keystroke logsNo final text sent to LLM by defaultAudit-ready review trail

The workflow

Replace suspicion with a reviewable evidence trail.

The product is intentionally framed around teacher judgement and student transparency. It helps staff decide what to ask next, not whether a student is guilty.

01

Capture the process

Students opt in, then the extension records metadata: active time, paste events, revision depth, and sync status.

02

Attach the declaration

Students disclose how AI helped: grammar, brainstorming, research support, partial drafting, or heavy drafting.

03

Review without overclaiming

Teachers get a neutral report and LLM brief that suggest questions, not accusations.

Pilot wedge

Built for Australian private colleges that need defensible context.

Best for report-heavy courses where AI policy exists, but teachers still lack a fair way to understand how a submission was produced.

50-200students in first pilot
3-5teachers reviewing real assignments
0AI-written verdicts from the product

The emotional promise

Teachers enter the conversation prepared, not punitive.

That is the hook: less guesswork, fewer unsupported escalations, and a review process students can understand before they submit.

Open pilot dashboard