Timeline
A session record with timestamped flagged events.
Device-level proctoring
Flagged sessions land in a queue with the evidence attached. Your team decides.
Proctoring evidence should make a session easier to understand, not turn an unexplained score into a verdict. ScreenComply brings flagged events, timestamps and surrounding context into a review workflow, where the institution or assessment owner remains responsible for the decision.
Timestamped evidence gives your team a reviewable session record.
A person applies the policy and makes the decision.
What does the reviewer receive?
Review queue
Bring sessions needing attention into the review workflow.
Reviewer decision
Keep the person’s decision and notes with the evidence.
What does a reviewer receive?
A reviewer receives a timeline of the session, flagged events with timestamps and the context around each observation. There is room for reviewer notes so the interpretation can remain connected to the evidence rather than living in a separate conversation. The report describes the session and supports a considered decision.
A flag is a starting point for review. Read the event against the permitted-tool policy, consider whether an accommodation or approved application explains it, and ask for clarification where appropriate. Evidence should help the reviewer separate an observation from an assumption about the student’s or candidate’s intentions.
How does the queue work?
Flagged sessions are presented first so the review team can focus its attention on records that need consideration. Opening a session brings its evidence into the review process. Nothing automatically fails a student or rejects a candidate, and a reviewer’s decision is recorded with the evidence that informed it.
The assessment owner decides how responsibility is assigned between an instructor, integrity office or hiring committee. Establish who reviews, who can make a final decision and when an assessed person should be invited to respond. A queue helps organize that work; it does not replace the policy that governs it.
Where does the evidence show up?
In the Canvas workflow, instructors can use the gradebook column to reach the session evidence. Integrity offices can use the reviewer console, while assessment platforms receive evidence through the API within their own workflow. Employers can include the report in a hiring committee’s assessment packet.
These destinations serve different reviewers, but they share the same principle: evidence accompanies the decision rather than a software label standing in for it. Agree the handoff between teams so an instructor, program administrator or hiring reviewer knows where to find the record and how to request clarification.
Who sets retention and access?
The institution or assessment owner sets retention and access for the agreed deployment. Decide who needs the evidence for an academic review, program decision or appeal, and align the retention period with that purpose. Students and candidates should receive a clear route for questions about their session record.
Data handling belongs in the assessment agreement and notice, not in an assumption made after a flag. Review the Trust Center and discuss the proposed workflow with the relevant privacy or procurement team. Requests for access, deletion or appeal material should follow the organization’s process.
How should a human decision be documented?
Record the relevant observation, the policy applied and the context considered, including any explanation from the assessed person. Reviewer notes should make the reasoning understandable without rewriting an event as a certainty the evidence cannot support. A complete review distinguishes between a concern, a clarification and a final institutional decision.
A documented process also helps when a different reviewer considers an appeal. Keep responsibility with the organization, preserve the appropriate evidence under its retention policy and explain how the person can ask about the outcome. ScreenComply supports that record; the institution supplies the procedural judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does ScreenComply fail students or reject candidates?
No. ScreenComply supplies evidence for a human review rather than automatically issuing a failure or rejection. The institution or employer applies its policy, considers context and records the decision.
Who can see the evidence?
Access is set by the institution or assessment owner for the agreed workflow. Ask the organization arranging your session which reviewers can see the record and how access requests are handled.
How long is it kept?
Retention is set by the institution or assessment owner rather than by a public universal period. The organization should explain the retention policy relevant to the exam, assessment review and any appeal process.
Can a student or candidate see what was recorded?
Students and candidates can ask the organization that arranged the assessment about access to their session evidence. The organization handles that request under its applicable policy and explains what can be shared through the review process.
Can we export the report for an appeal?
Discuss the report format and authorized sharing workflow with the ScreenComply team for your deployment. The institution controls how evidence is provided for an appeal and should confirm access, retention and the material required before relying on a particular export arrangement.
Bring your assessment and review process.
Discuss the evidence your reviewers need, the candidate experience and the policy that guides a human decision.