How to Add an Integrity Layer to Your Assessment Platform

Why platforms are being asked for this now

Assessment platforms increasingly field the same question from enterprise and institutional buyers: how do you know the person completed this without AI assistance? Native webcam proctoring and browser lockdown answer part of it, but neither observes the desktop assistants and overlay tools buyers are actually worried about.

Building that observation layer in-house means shipping and maintaining a signed desktop agent across Windows and macOS, tracking a fast-moving list of assistant applications, and defending detection methodology to procurement teams. For most platforms that is not the roadmap they want to own.

How the integration works

The lightest integration is a wrapped launch link. Instead of sending the candidate directly to your assessment URL, you request a session from ScreenComply and send them the wrapped link. The session is created, the proctoring context is established, and the candidate lands in your assessment exactly as before. When the session ends, the integrity report is available through the API and by webhook.

Deeper integrations are available where the platform wants the report surfaced natively: embedded report views, per-session policy configuration, and role-scoped access aligned with your own permission model.

• Wrapped launch link: create a session, redirect the candidate, receive the report — days of work, not quarters.
• API and webhook delivery of session verdicts and evidence timelines.
• Per-session policy: Detect mode for observation, Prevent mode to block restricted applications.
• Embedded, brand-neutral report views for surfacing results inside your product.
• Role-scoped access and configurable retention, including zero-retention modes.

White-label and commercial models

ScreenComply supports white-label deployment: your brand on the candidate experience and on the report, with ScreenComply operating as the underlying detection infrastructure. Commercial arrangements include per-session pricing, platform-wide licensing, and revenue-share structures where integrity is sold as a premium tier to your own customers.

The common pattern is a paid integrity tier: standard assessments stay as they are, and high-stakes assessments carry a per-session integrity charge that the platform prices and keeps a share of. Specific terms are worked out per partner rather than published.

It runs alongside your native proctoring

This is a complementary layer, not a replacement. Existing webcam proctoring, lockdown behaviour, and identity checks continue to operate; ScreenComply adds the operating-system-level signals those tools were not built to collect, and consolidates the result into one report.

Platforms that already ship proctoring generally position the ScreenComply tier as the option for high-stakes, credentialing, or regulated assessments rather than replacing the default experience.

What device-level detection observes

Reliable detection has to happen at the layer where assistance runs: the operating system. ScreenComply pairs a browser-based API with an optional desktop agent that inspects the environment around the assessment rather than only the page inside it.

The agent enumerates running processes and browser extensions against a maintained list of AI assistants and answer overlays, looks for always-on-top or transparent windows, detects remote access and virtualization, enumerates connected displays from the operating system, verifies that keyboard input originates from local physical hardware, and records focus changes, clipboard events, and typing-cadence patterns.

No detection system catches everything, and ScreenComply does not claim otherwise. The objective is corroborating, timestamped evidence that lets a human reviewer make an informed and defensible decision.

• Process and extension enumeration against a maintained AI-assistant list.
• Overlay, transparency, and always-on-top window detection.
• Remote access, virtual machine, and screen-capture driver detection.
• Display enumeration reported by the operating system, not inferred from gaze alone.
• Input-source integrity, clipboard events, and typing-cadence analysis.

Turning signals into a report someone can defend

A detection is only useful if it can be explained to a person who was not in the room. Every session produces a structured integrity report: an executive verdict with a graded risk level, a chronological evidence timeline, and the underlying signal detail behind each entry.

Language is deliberately factual rather than accusatory, because the institution or employer makes the decision, not the software. Reports export to PDF and can be shared through a secure link for academic-integrity hearings, HR reviews, and compliance audits, with configurable retention including zero-retention operating modes.