Academic integrity guide
Can ChatGPT Be Detected During Online Exams?
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
Why text-based AI detectors are the wrong tool
Post-hoc detectors judge finished prose that no longer carries dependable authorship signals. They produce both false accusations and easy evasions, and light rephrasing is usually enough to defeat them. Building an academic-integrity case on a probability score leaves an institution exposed at appeal.
Session evidence is a different category of proof. Rather than arguing about whether text looks generated, the institution can point to what was running on the machine during the assessment and exactly when.
Why browser-based tools cannot see the assistance
Browser extensions and lockdown browsers observe the page, the tab, and often the webcam. Their visibility ends where the browser process ends, and that is precisely where modern AI assistance lives.
Desktop assistants and answer overlays render above every other window, are frequently excluded from screen capture and screen sharing, and never interact with the assessment tab. Remote-control tools, virtual machines, injected keyboard input, and a second device off camera are equally invisible from inside the browser.
- Native overlay applications draw over the assessment and are often excluded from screen share.
- Remote-access tools allow another person to drive the machine with no browser-visible trace.
- Virtual machines let the assessment run inside a controlled environment with helpers outside it.
- Injected or synthesized keyboard input can enter answers that were never physically typed.
- A second phone, tablet, or monitor off camera leaves nothing at all in the browser.
What device-level detection observes
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
What a detection looks like in practice
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
Turning signals into a report someone can defend
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
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.
Where to go next
Frequently asked questions
Can a lockdown browser detect ChatGPT?
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
Are AI text detectors accurate enough for academic-integrity cases?
They are widely regarded as unreliable for disciplinary decisions. They produce false positives on legitimate writing and can be defeated by rephrasing, which is why session-level evidence is more defensible.
What signals indicate ChatGPT use during an exam?
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
Does detection require the student to install software?
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
Does ScreenComply decide whether a student cheated?
ScreenComply supports trustworthy results by reviewing the whole session and flagging concerns for human review, with evidence attached.
ScreenComply is under contract with the State of Montana. Security and compliance documentation is shared after an introductory call.
See a session, a detection, and a report
A short walkthrough of the evidence reports and review experience your team would receive.