Trust Center
Evidence, not verdicts: how ScreenComply uses AI responsibly.
AI supports the evidence record. Your institution decides what is enabled, reviews the context and makes every decision about a student or candidate.
Who makes the decision?
ScreenComply does not make automated decisions about any student or candidate. Findings are evidence for human review by the institution, not automatic grades, failures, rejections or misconduct determinations.
A reviewer should consider the assessment policy, permitted applications, accommodations and the person's explanation. A flag is a question to examine in context, not proof of intent.
What is enabled by default?
Face recognition and identity matching are not enabled by default. The institution controls the checks used for its assessment and should review the scope before asking students or candidates to participate.
Configurable signals let the institution align the session with its own policy. Optional checks should be selected deliberately, with a clear explanation of what is enabled rather than an assumption that every available check is necessary.
How are students and candidates informed?
Student and candidate notice belongs before the assessment. The notice should state when proctoring runs, what is recorded at a high level, whether optional camera checks are enabled, who reviews evidence and how long it is retained.
Give people a route to raise an accessibility concern or an approved-tool question before the session. When a concern appears in the evidence, use the institution's review and response process rather than treating unfamiliar activity as a verdict.
How does the institution retain control?
The institution chooses what is enabled, applies its own permitted-tool policy and determines access and retention under the agreed terms. It can use the evidence to support an existing review process without delegating adjudication to AI.
An ISO/IEC 42001 program is a roadmap item. It is not described as in progress and is not an ISO certification claim for ScreenComply. Discuss governance documentation with our team as part of your review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does AI decide that someone cheated?
No. ScreenComply provides evidence, not a verdict. The institution reviews the assessment context and makes any decision under its own process.
Is face recognition or identity matching on by default?
No. Face recognition and identity matching are not enabled by default. Ask the institution which checks it has selected for the session.
Can an institution choose which signals are enabled?
Yes. The institution controls what is enabled and should align those settings with its assessment policy and accommodations. Students and candidates should receive notice of the agreed scope.
How should a reviewer handle an ambiguous finding?
Review the evidence against the permitted-tool policy and any accommodation, and allow the student or candidate to explain. An ambiguous observation should not become an automated penalty.
Is ScreenComply ISO/IEC 42001 certified?
No certification is claimed. An ISO/IEC 42001 program is a roadmap item, not an in-progress program or a completed certification.
Documentation. Context. Human Review.
Bring your review requirements to the conversation.
Discuss the assessment workflow, data handling and documentation your team needs to make an informed decision.