Proctoring Guide
AI proctoring false positives, and how to review a flag fairly.
A proctoring flag is a request for review, not a finding of cheating. False positives become harmful when ambiguous observations are treated as automated verdicts. A fair process examines timestamped evidence, checks the assessment policy and accommodations, hears the student's explanation and documents a human decision.
Timestamped observations support a fair review.
Your institution applies its own policy and considers context.
Evidence informs a decision. A person makes it.
Why do automated verdicts create false positives?
An event can be real while the interpretation is wrong. A permitted application, an accessibility tool or an ordinary interruption may produce an observation that needs context. When software labels that observation as misconduct without review, the institution loses the distinction between what happened and what it means.
The problem is not solved by pretending flags are always correct or always meaningless. They can help reviewers focus attention if their scope and limits are clear. The institution should require evidence that can be examined and explained, and should reject workflows in which a software label silently determines a grade or disciplinary outcome.
What does evidence instead of verdicts look like?
A useful evidence report contains a readable summary, timestamped observations and the context needed to understand why the session was flagged. It should distinguish observed activity from an interpretation and make limitations apparent. Reviewers need to know which checks were enabled and which parts of the assessment were outside their view.
The report should also support a conversation with the student. A person must be able to identify the relevant event without relying on an unexplained score. ScreenComply provides evidence for human review; the institution applies its policy and decides whether the record warrants further action or supports clearing the concern.
How should an integrity office review a flag?
Agree who looks first before the exam cycle begins. An instructor can check the assessment context and permitted materials, while the integrity office follows its process for any escalation. Review relevant evidence rather than assuming that a flag alone justifies a disciplinary case or that every event deserves the same response.
Tell the student what concern is being reviewed and show the evidence that supports it. Allow an explanation and consider whether more context is needed. Document the applicable rule, the evidence considered, the explanation and the reason for the decision. A consistent record supports both accountability and an informed appeal.
How should accommodations and legitimate exceptions be handled?
Permitted assistive technology, alternative input devices and approved applications should be considered before the assessment. The review process needs access to the relevant permission without exposing unnecessary personal information. An accommodation is part of the exam context, not a reason to place the student under a different misconduct standard.
Students should have a clear route to raise a setup issue or an unexpected interruption. Reviewers should consider that explanation alongside the evidence and avoid assuming unfamiliar behavior is dishonest. The institution retains responsibility for accessible assessments and should confirm that prevention settings do not conflict with permitted tools.
What should you require from a vendor?
Require a report that exposes the evidence behind a concern, explains collection limits and supports human review. Ask how a student can receive the relevant record, how retention and deletion work and how reviewers distinguish a legitimate exception from prohibited assistance. Those answers matter more than a promise of perfect detection.
During a pilot, walk through an ambiguous session as well as an uncomplicated one. Confirm that no automatic grade change or misconduct verdict is issued, and that the institution can follow its established procedure. Evaluate the notice and review experience with teaching, integrity, accessibility and privacy colleagues before a broader rollout.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a proctoring flag mean a student cheated?
No. It identifies an observation that may need review. The instructor and integrity office apply the assessment policy, consider context and hear the student's explanation before deciding whether a rule was violated.
Can an honest student be flagged?
Yes. Legitimate activity can be misinterpreted without context, which is why evidence and human review are necessary. A fair workflow lets a reviewer clear a concern rather than forcing every flag into a misconduct finding.
Should a flag automatically change a grade?
No. A grade or disciplinary decision belongs to the institution's process. Software should provide evidence for that decision rather than automatically penalizing a student because an event was recorded.
What should a student be shown?
Show the relevant timestamped evidence and explain the concern under the assessment policy. Give the student an opportunity to respond, including any approved accommodation or legitimate reason for the activity.
How can a university evaluate fair review?
Ask a vendor to walk through an ambiguous finding, the report and the student response process. Confirm that staff can document a reasoned decision and that retention, access and appeal requirements fit institutional policy.
Evidence. Context. Human Review.
Bring your next exam to the conversation.
Review the assessment workflow, the evidence your team receives and the policy that guides a human decision.