What Is an Integrity Report?

What an integrity report contains

A ScreenComply integrity report is structured so that a reviewer who was not present can reconstruct the session in minutes. It opens with an executive summary and a graded risk level, then presents the evidence chronologically, then exposes the signal detail behind each entry for anyone who needs to go deeper.

• Executive summary: the session outcome and risk level in plain, non-accusatory language.
• Evidence timeline: every notable event with its timestamp, in the order it occurred.
• Signal detail: the process, window, input, display, or network observation behind each timeline entry.
• Session context: the assessment or interview, the operating mode (Detect or Prevent), and the policy configuration in force.
• Correlated findings: entries that reinforce each other are grouped, because corroboration is what makes evidence strong.

How it differs from a proctoring recording

A proctoring recording is footage: a reviewer has to watch it, interpret it, and take notes before it becomes usable in a process. That takes time per session, scales badly, and still only shows what the camera and the browser could see.

An integrity report is findings. The observation has already happened at the device level and the report presents it as structured, timestamped entries rather than as video to be reviewed. Recordings and reports answer different questions - what the room looked like versus what the machine was doing - and institutions often use both, with the report as the primary document and recordings as supporting context.

How review committees and hiring teams use it

In an academic misconduct process, the report is the exhibit: the committee reads the timeline, examines the signal detail behind flagged entries, and the student can be shown the same document. Because the language is factual rather than accusatory, the report describes observations and leaves the determination to the committee under institutional policy.

Hiring teams use the same structure. A flagged interview produces a report the hiring panel can review alongside the interview itself, apply consistently across candidates, and retain as the record of why a decision was made. Where a finding is ambiguous, the report supports a verified re-interview rather than a silent rejection.

Why the audit trail matters for defensibility

Decisions about students and candidates get challenged - at appeal, at grievance, occasionally in front of lawyers. What survives challenge is not a strong suspicion but a consistent process: the same monitoring applied to everyone, disclosed in advance, with findings documented at the time they occurred rather than reconstructed later.

That is the purpose of the report's format. Timestamps tie each observation to a moment in the session. Grouped, correlated entries show when independent signals agree. Export to PDF and secure share links let the document move through a formal process without losing its structure, and configurable retention - including zero-retention modes - lets the institution decide how long artifacts persist.

Where ScreenComply fits

ScreenComply generates the integrity report automatically for every proctored session, whether the session ran through the Canvas integration, the Verify product for live interviews, or the Screen product for recorded sessions. It runs alongside your LMS, assessment platform, or interview tooling rather than replacing any of them.

No detection system catches everything, and ScreenComply does not claim otherwise. The report exists so that what is observed becomes evidence a human can act on - and so that a person, not a score, makes the decision.