These results help you distinguish between students who can clearly self-validate their learning and development, and those where there may be limited evidence of process or understanding within the validation step. That is: learning, not policing.
Human Factors
Assesses whether patterns in the submission are consistent with human writing, scored sentence-by-sentence, not as a single whole-document verdict, so isolated AI-assisted sentences don't affect the whole piece.
Output: a score for the degree of human writing.
Authorship Continuity
Compares this submission with a past writing sample from the same
student, matching sentence structure, vocabulary and punctuation to confirm it's their own voice.
If the student did not submit a sample document, this part may be blank at their first validation.
Cognitive Command Q&A
Short viva-style questions, cross-referenced against the student's own document, and scored across three tiers: consistently proven, needs more information, or inconsistent.
Output: a Q&A score across questions asked.
Where your policy takes over
Studiosity contributes structured, multi-layered learning signals to inform decision-making within your existing policies. Where concerns arise, you continue to use your institution's established academic integrity procedures, professional judgement, and escalation pathways.
The validation step is designed to give you structured evidence of a student's learning and development before those pathways are used, and perhaps to avoid policing students who have demonstrated thinking already; but not to replace those educational integrity systems.