In short
A defensible AI suspicion needs five things in this order: communicate clear rules on AI use early, document the concrete trigger, gather further evidence, talk to the student, and only then - if needed - involve parents or an academic board. Skip this order and you risk a process that won't hold up legally.
The process in 5 steps
Clear rules & communication
Rules can only be broken if they were set in the first place. Communicate rules on using AI as an aid early on. These rules should ideally be documented in your examination policy. Clear rules mean fairness and clarity for everyone.
Document the concrete trigger
Note immediately what exactly raised the suspicion - a specific language pattern, a conspicuous score, a style break from earlier work. With a date. A vague "it sounded off" won't carry a later conversation.
Gather further evidence
One tool, one score isn't enough. Check the text and other texts from the same person with style analysis to get a feel for the writing style, or "fingerprint," of their texts. Data forensics tools, for example, can show whether a file was created with AI. Multiple pieces of evidence raise the suspicion further.
Talk to the student
Before anyone else is informed: ask open, content-based questions about the text and how it came about. Someone who wrote it themselves can usually explain it. This is often the step that resolves things without needing to escalate. Best documented in writing.
Involve parents or an academic board - if needed
If the suspicion remains after step 4, the next level follows your examination policy. Prepare the conversation in writing: trigger, evidence gathered, outcome of the student conversation - as a through-line, not an accusation.
The most important point: the order protects you. A parent conversation before gathered evidence and a student conversation looks pre-judged - even if the original suspicion was justified. Stick to the five steps, even under time pressure.
Frequently asked questions
The concrete trigger (which tell, which score), the date, who was informed, and the outcome of each step. Without a date and a concrete trigger, documentation is hard to defend after the fact.
No — the opposite. The parent conversation is part of the review, not its outcome. Go in with questions, not a finished verdict.
Depending on the examination policy, tight appeal/procedure deadlines often apply — find out early so the process doesn't fail on a missed deadline.
By Simon Schmidlin