{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:11:50.628Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"academic-integrity","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2026","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":6,"coverage":{"cases":6,"countries":4,"languages":4,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":3,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":2,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":2},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-lulea-university-disciplinary-board-suspends-two-students-over-unauthorised-ai-use-with-invented-references","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Disciplinnämnden vid Luleå tekniska universitet har fattat beslut i sex disciplinärenden.'; 'Fem studenter stängs av från utbildningsverksamheten i sex veckor.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The disciplinary board of Luleå University of Technology decided six disciplinary cases, suspending five students from teaching for six weeks and giving a sixth a warning.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's report of the board's decisions; the decisions were not inspected."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I två fall rör det sig om otillåten AI-användning där inlämnade arbeten innehöll påhittade källhänvisningar, bland annat till en bok som inte existerar.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Two of the cases concerned unauthorised AI use in which the submitted work contained invented source references, including one to a book that does not exist.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's account of the board's grounds; the method by which the AI use was established is not described."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Alla avstängningar gäller från den 14 september till 25 oktober 2026.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"All the suspensions run from 14 September to 25 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"As reported by the newspaper."}],"effects":[{"label":"six-week suspension from teaching for two students over unauthorised AI use","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.kuriren.nu/nyheter/lulea/artikel/fem-studenter-avstangs-vid-ltu-efter-fusk-med-ai/rexpg4xl","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"sv","translation_note":"Read in the original Swedish (HTML body and stripped text); the page is marked as not free to access (isAccessibleForFree false), so text beyond the inspected passages may exist. Passages are quoted in Swedish; the English renderings in the record are translations by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator.","independence_group":"kuriren-ltu-disciplinary-sep-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used, in which courses and how the board established the AI use.","The date of the board's decisions and whether either student appealed to the administrative court.","What the students said in their defence."],"geography":{"basis":"The decisions were taken by the disciplinary board of Luleå University of Technology in Luleå, Sweden, as the report states. The students' own countries are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["SE"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete sanction for prohibited AI use: two students were suspended for six weeks after the disciplinary board found unauthorised AI use in work that cited invented sources. The facts rest on one local newspaper's report of the decisions.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Norrbottens-Kuriren reports that two of the disciplinary cases concerned unauthorised AI use in which the submitted work contained invented source references, including one to a non-existent book; the article's headline says AI invented a source ('AI hittade på källa'), and the board suspended the two students for six weeks. The tool is not named and the way the board established the AI use is not described.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Luleå university board suspends two students for six weeks over unauthorised AI use whose submitted work cited invented sources, local paper reports","summary":"The disciplinary board of Luleå University of Technology (LTU) in northern Sweden decided six disciplinary cases and suspended five students from teaching for six weeks, from 14 September to 25 October 2026, Norrbottens-Kuriren reported on 21 September 2026. In two of the cases, according to the newspaper, the matter was unauthorised use of AI in which the submitted work contained invented source references, among them a reference to a book that does not exist. The other suspensions concerned plagiarism of a classmate's lab report and unauthorised notes at an exam; a sixth student received a warning. The report does not name the AI tool, the courses or the students and quotes neither the students nor the university.","incidentDate":"2026-09-14","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-25","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-21","aiSystem":"An unnamed AI tool whose use the disciplinary board treated as unauthorised; the submitted work contained invented source references, including one to a non-existent book, according to Norrbottens-Kuriren","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to Norrbottens-Kuriren, two students were suspended from teaching for six weeks, from 14 September to 25 October 2026, after the disciplinary board found unauthorised AI use in work that cited invented sources.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":2,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two students: the report says two of the six cases concerned unauthorised AI use; each case concerned one student.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"SE","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.kuriren.nu/nyheter/lulea/artikel/fem-studenter-avstangs-vid-ltu-efter-fusk-med-ai/rexpg4xl","primarySourceLabel":"Norrbottens-Kuriren, 21 September 2026: Five students suspended at LTU for cheating, AI invented a source","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:03.052663+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:03.052663+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","invented-references","student-suspension","university","sweden","own-use"]},{"id":"2026-konkuk-university-student-given-zero-and-f-after-friend-solved-midterm-with-ai-via-hidden-camera-and-smartwatch","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'지난 14일 건국대 한 학과 중간고사에서 AI를 활용한 부정행위가 적발됐다. 문제가 발생한 과목은 해당 학과의 전공 과목으로 수강인원이 100여 명에 달한다.'; '담당 교수는 사건 발생 이튿날인 15일 학생들에게 “시험에서 부정행위를 한 학생이 적발됐다”고 공지했다.'; '“해당 학생은 가슴에 부착한 카메라를 이용해 시험 문제를 친구에게 보냈고, 그의 친구는 AI를 이용해 문제를 푼 뒤 답안을 해당 학생의 스마트워치로 전송했다”고 설명했다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'a Konkuk University student was caught cheating on a midterm exam by sending questions through a hidden chest camera to a friend, who solved them with AI and sent the answers to the student’s smartwatch.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the professor's notice to students on 15 October 2026 as reported by JoongAng Ilbo, in a midterm exam on 14 October 2026 in a major course of about 100 students at Konkuk University, a student sent the exam questions to a friend using a camera attached to the chest; the friend solved the questions using AI and sent the answers to the student's smartwatch.","causal_attribution":"The professor's notice relayed in one reporting chain (Korean original and its English version); the AI tool is not named; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'담당 교수는 A씨가 시험에서 만점을 맞은 것을 수상히 여겨 그를 불러 같은 문제를 직접 풀어보라고 요구했다. 그러나 A씨는 제대로 답을 적어내지 못했고, 추궁 끝에 이 같은 사실을 털어놨다고 한다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The professor said they grew suspicious when the student earned a perfect score and called the student in to solve the same problems again in a controlled environment. The student failed to write the answers properly and confessed after being questioned, according to the professor’s notice.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the professor's notice, the professor became suspicious when the student scored full marks, called the student in to solve the same problems again, and the student could not write the answers and confessed after questioning.","causal_attribution":"The professor's account in one reporting chain; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'대학 측은 “AI와 스마트워치를 이용해 답안 작성에 부정행위를 한 사실이 적발돼 담당 교수는 규정에 따라 해당 학생의 시험을 0점 처리하고 F학점을 부과했다” 했다.'; '해당 학과는 기말고사부터 모든 종류의 카메라와 시계 반입을 금지하고 안경도 검사하기로 했다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'“Because it was found that the student cheated by writing the answers using AI and a smartwatch, the professor in charge gave the student a zero on the exam and an F in the class in accordance with regulations,” the university said.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the university, the professor gave the student a zero on the exam and an F in the course under the regulations because the student was found to have cheated by writing answers using AI and a smartwatch; the department decided to ban all cameras and watches from the final exam onward and to inspect eyeglasses.","causal_attribution":"The university's statement relayed in one reporting chain; the university's own record of the grade is not inspected; reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"zero on the midterm exam and an F in the course for AI-assisted cheating (university's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25471463","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-10-22 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. JoongAng Ilbo exclusive published 21 October 2026, 05:00 KST (print edition page 10), citing the professor's notice to students and a university statement ('21일 대학가에 따르면').","independence_group":"joongang-konkuk-report-2026-10-21"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/korea/ai-cheating-tests-korean-universities-as-schools-struggle-to-keep-up/12931532","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). Korea JoongAng Daily's English version of the s1 report, published 21 October 2026; its footer says it was translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools and edited by the newsroom. Same reporting chain as s1.","independence_group":"joongang-konkuk-report-2026-10-21"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the friend used.","Whether the friend is a student and whether the friend faced any consequence.","Whether the student appealed the penalty or faced further disciplinary action beyond the zero and the F."],"geography":{"basis":"The exam took place at Konkuk University, which the reports place among universities in Seoul ('서울의 한 대학'), South Korea. The student's nationality and residence are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["KR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a sanction for prohibited AI use: the university says it gave a student a zero and an F after a midterm in which, according to the professor's notice, a friend solved the questions with AI and relayed the answers to the student's smartwatch; the student confessed. No student is identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The professor's notice says the friend used AI to solve the midterm questions the student sent by camera and sent the answers to the student's smartwatch, and the university says the student was penalised for cheating by writing answers using AI and a smartwatch; the student confessed. The penalty is the university's response to the AI-assisted cheating. The AI output reached the student only through the friend, so no relation describing the AI system's own action toward the student is recorded. The AI tool is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Konkuk University says a student got a zero and an F after a friend solved midterm questions with AI and relayed the answers to a smartwatch","summary":"In a midterm exam on 14 October 2026 in a major course of about 100 students at Konkuk University in Seoul, a student sent the questions to a friend through a camera attached to the chest; the friend solved them using AI and sent the answers to the student's smartwatch, according to the professor's notice to students as reported by JoongAng Ilbo on 21 October 2026. The professor became suspicious of a perfect score, asked the student to solve the same problems again, and the student could not and confessed. The university said the professor gave the student a zero on the exam and an F in the course under its regulations for cheating by writing answers using AI and a smartwatch, and the department decided to ban cameras and watches from the final exam onward. The AI tool is not named, and no consequence for the friend is reported.","incidentDate":"2026-10-14","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-21","aiSystem":"An AI tool a friend used to solve midterm exam questions that the student sent by hidden camera; the answers were relayed to the student's smartwatch. The tool is not named in the reports","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI problem-solving tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the university, the student was given a zero on the midterm and an F in the course after cheating with AI-solved answers relayed to a smartwatch.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a zero on the exam and an F in the course according to the university's statement. The student did not operate the AI tool (the friend did, per the professor's notice), so the student is counted among other people harmed. The friend is not counted because no consequence is reported.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"KR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25471463","primarySourceLabel":"JoongAng Ilbo, 21 October 2026: camera on clothes and AI used to cheat in a university midterm (Korean)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T02:57:51.454402+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T02:57:51.454402+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","exam-cheating","smartwatch","grade-penalty","consequential-response","korea"]},{"id":"2026-seoul-national-university-computer-engineering-course-36-students-penalised-after-admitting-banned-ai-use","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'컴퓨터공학부 4학년 학생을 대상으로 하는 이 강의는 컴퓨터 네트워크의 원칙과 구현·운영 원리를 다루는 수업으로 과제를 푸는 데 코딩이 필요했던 것으로 전해졌다.'; '모든 수업 활동에서 생성형 AI를 활용하지 않고 진행한다'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'이 수업은 애초 ‘모든 수업 활동에서 생성형 인공지능을 활용하지 않는다’는 공지를 내걸었다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"According to the course syllabus as reported by JoongAng Ilbo and Hankyoreh, a fourth-year computer engineering course on computer networking at Seoul National University in the first semester of 2026 stated that all course activities would be conducted without generative AI; the assignments required coding.","causal_attribution":"Both outlets quote the same syllabus notice; one documentary origin, so reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'30일 서울대 관계자에 따르면 지난 1학기 서울대 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서 수강생 62명 중 절반이 넘는 36명이 AI를 과제에 사용해 성적에 불이익을 받았다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'30일 연합뉴스 취재를 종합하면 서울대 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서 지난 1학기 수강생 62명 중 절반이 넘는 36명이 AI를 과제에 사용한 것으로 드러났다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Thirty-six of the 62 students enrolled in a fourth-year computer engineering course during the first semester of the 2026 academic year were penalized for using AI to complete their assignments'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to an SNU official and the professor, 36 of the 62 students enrolled in the course were penalised in their grades for using AI on assignments.","causal_attribution":"The university's and the professor's account; the outlets do not show independent access to the grade records, so reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'박 교수는 AI 사용을 자진 신고한 학생 25명에 대해 해당 과제에 0점을 부여했다.'; '신고하지 않았다가 면담에서 AI를 사용한 사실을 시인한 11명에 대해서는 과목 성적 D-가 주어졌다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'He gave the 11 students who only later confessed to using AI during their meeting a final grade of D minus for the entire course.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"According to JoongAng Ilbo, the professor gave zero marks on the affected assignments to 25 students who disclosed their AI use voluntarily and a D-minus grade for the whole course to 11 students who admitted it only when interviewed at the end of the semester.","causal_attribution":"The professor's account in one reporting chain (Korean original and its English version)."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'박 교수는 “AI 사용이 의심되는 과제에선 교수와 조교가 이해하지 못하는 코드가 포함됐고 학생이 이를 설명하지 못한 경우가 있었다”고 했다.'; '같은 과제를 AI에게 입력했을 때 학생의 답변과 유사한 코드가 만들어지기도 했다고 한다.'; '“적발된 36명 모두 과제에 AI를 사용한 사실을 시인했다”고 밝혔다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'\"처분된 학생들은 전원 본인이 인정한 경우\"라며'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The professor said some suspected submissions contained code that neither he nor the teaching assistants could understand and that students could not explain; according to JoongAng, entering the same assignment into AI produced code similar to students' answers; the professor said all 36 penalised students admitted using AI.","causal_attribution":"The professor's own statements (interview and course notice); one actor, so reported. The AI tools used are not named."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'학생회는 최근 AI 사용 여부를 판별하는 기준이 불명확하다는 내용을 담은 학생 의견서를 교수에 전달했다.'; '사람과 AI 답변이 비슷한 경우 AI를 쓰지 않은 학생도 AI를 썼다고 오인돼 감점됐을 수 있다는 취지'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'“솔직하게 답변한 학생은 불이익을 받고, 실제로 (생성형 인공지능을) 사용했지만 이를 부인하거나 적발되지 않은 학생은 불이익을 받지 않았을 가능성이 있어 공정하지 않다”는 취지의 의견서를 냈다고 한다.'; '“죄지은 사람 모두가 잡히지 않았다고 죄를 지은 사람을 처벌하는 것이 불공정하다라는 주장은 도저히 받아들일 수 없다”고 했다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The computer engineering student government sent the professor a written objection saying the criteria for judging AI use were unclear, that students who did not use AI might have been wrongly penalised, and that students who answered honestly were penalised while others who denied use may not have been; the professor rejected the objection.","causal_attribution":"Counter-evidence from the student government, relayed by two outlets; reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'지난 1학기 공대 컴퓨터공학부의 한 전공과목에서는 수강생 62명 중 36명이 사전에 금지된 AI를 과제에 사용해 성적상 불이익을 받았다.'; '\"가이드라인을 좀 더 보완하고 수정해야 할 부분이 있다고 생각한다\"'; '안 의원은 교양과목과 공대에서 발생한 부정행위를 언급하며 \"AI 가이드라인을 제시했음에도 불구하고 상당히 무력화되고 있는 양상\"이라고 지적했다.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"At the National Assembly education committee's audit of Seoul National University on 16 October 2026, a lawmaker said the university's AI guidelines were being rendered ineffective, citing incidents including the engineering course; the university president said the guidelines needed to be supplemented and revised.","causal_attribution":"Statements at a public parliamentary audit as reported by one outlet."}],"effects":[{"label":"zero marks on assignments or a D-minus course grade after admitted use of banned AI (professor's and university's account)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25449436","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. JoongAng Ilbo exclusive published 30 July 2026, 11:13 KST, citing an SNU official and an interview with the course professor.","independence_group":"joongang-snu-report-2026-07-30"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20260730123800004","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Yonhap report sent 30 July 2026, 14:29 KST ('연합뉴스 취재를 종합하면'), quoting the professor's notice to students. The underlying actor (the professor) is the same as in s1, so claims stay reported.","independence_group":"yonhap-snu-report-2026-07-30"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/1271237.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Hankyoreh follow-up published 3 August 2026, describing the student government's written objection and quoting the professor.","independence_group":"hankyoreh-snu-report-2026-08-03"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20261016001323","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"ko","translation_note":"Read in Korean on 2026-10-21 from the publisher page (HTTP 200); translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translator reviewed it. Newspim report of the National Assembly education committee audit of Seoul National University on 16 October 2026 (published 17:10 KST).","independence_group":"newspim-national-assembly-audit-2026-10-16"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/korea/prompt-and-punishment-50-of-snu-students-in-coding-course-penalized-for-ai-use/12799877","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-21 (HTTP 200). Korea JoongAng Daily's English version of the s1 report, published 30 July 2026; its footer says it was translated with the help of generative AI tools and edited by the newsroom. Same reporting chain as s1.","independence_group":"joongang-snu-report-2026-07-30"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["Which AI tools the students used.","The exact dates within the first semester of 2026 when the assignments were submitted and the penalties imposed.","Whether any student appealed or whether the university reviewed the penalties after the student government's objection.","Whether any student who did not use AI was penalised, as the student government suggested might have happened."],"geography":{"basis":"The course was taught at Seoul National University in Seoul, South Korea, as stated in all reports. Students' nationalities and residences are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["KR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a sanction for prohibited AI use: Seoul National University's professor and an SNU official say 36 of 62 students in a computer engineering course that banned generative AI admitted using AI on coding assignments and received zero marks or a D-minus grade; the student government's objection and the October 2026 parliamentary audit are recorded. No student is identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-21"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The professor said the penalised students used AI to complete coding assignments in a course whose syllabus banned generative AI; he found code he and his teaching assistants could not understand and students could not explain, entering the assignment into AI produced similar code, and all 36 students admitted the AI use. The students' exchanges with generative AI produced the submitted code, and the penalties are the professor's response to that use. The AI tools are not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Seoul National University professor penalised 36 of 62 computer engineering students who, he says, admitted using banned generative AI on assignments","summary":"In the first semester of 2026, 36 of the 62 students in a fourth-year computer engineering course on computer networking at Seoul National University were penalised for using AI on coding assignments, according to an SNU official and the course's professor as reported by JoongAng Ilbo and Yonhap on 30 July 2026. The syllabus said all course activities would be conducted without generative AI. The professor gave zero marks on the affected assignments to 25 students who came forward and a D-minus course grade to 11 who admitted AI use only when interviewed; he said all 36 admitted using AI. The department's student government objected that the criteria were unclear and that honest students were penalised while others may not have been; the professor rejected this. On 16 October 2026 a lawmaker raised SNU's AI cheating incidents at the National Assembly audit, and the university president said its AI guidelines needed to be supplemented.","incidentDate":"2026-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-07-30","aiSystem":"Generative AI used by students to produce code for assignments in a course that banned it; the tools are not named in the reports","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI coding tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the professor and an SNU official, 36 students received zero marks on assignments or a D-minus course grade after admitting banned AI use; the student government disputes the fairness of the criteria.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":36,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"36 students: the number an SNU official and the professor say were penalised (25 with zero marks on affected assignments, 11 with a D-minus course grade), all of whom admitted AI use according to the professor. The other 26 students in the course are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"KR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25449436","primarySourceLabel":"JoongAng Ilbo, 30 July 2026: SNU course gives mass zeros and D-minus grades over AI cheating (Korean)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-21T03:09:55.020868+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-21T03:09:55.020868+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","generative-ai","coding-assignments","grade-penalty","own-use","consequential-response","korea"]},{"id":"2026-leiden-law-student-thesis-sanction-over-ai-invented-references-annulled-by-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 29 januari 2026 heeft de examencommissie de scriptie van'; 'tot en met 28 januari 2027 uitgesloten van deelname aan het bachelorscriptietraject en enig ander tentamen van een door de faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid verzorgde opleiding'; 'De examencommissie heeft deze sanctie opgelegd omdat in het verwijzingsapparaat van zijn bachelorscriptie een aantal niet bestaande bronnen is opgenomen. Volgens de examencommissie duiden deze fictieve bronvermeldingen op ongeoorloofd gebruik van generatieve AI en dus fraude.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De examencommissie beschouwde dit als fraude.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 29 January 2026 the Leiden law faculty's exam board declared the student's bachelor thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and any exam in the faculty's programmes, because, in its view, non-existent sources in the references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud.","causal_attribution":"The decisions are recorded in the ruling; the PONT summary restates them."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hij heeft niet zelf bronnen verzonnen, maar de AI-tool die hij heeft gebruikt bij het opstellen van het verwijzingsapparaat heeft niet alle bronnen uit het concept van zijn scriptie correct overgenomen.'; 'Het gaat om zeven foutieve verwijzingen - waarvan één tweemaal - op een totaal van zesendertig voetnoten met bronverwijzingen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student stated that he had not invented sources himself and that the AI tool he used to prepare the references had not carried over all sources from his draft correctly, affecting seven references in footnotes of the final version, one of them twice, out of 36 footnotes with references.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that he made this argument; the count of errors is stated by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'heeft toegelicht dat hij voor zijn scriptie AI heeft gebruikt voor een spellingcontrole en om zijn bronnenlijst te controleren en te ordenen'; 'toegelicht welke bronnen door AI zijn verdraaid, zoals verkeerde jaartallen of voorletters van auteurs, of door AI zijn bedacht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sommige bronnen bevatten verkeerde jaartallen of auteursnamen, andere waren door AI verzonnen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He had used AI to spell-check the thesis and to check and order its reference list, and the AI distorted some references (for example wrong years or author initials) and invented others.","causal_attribution":"The student's own account; the appeals board and the Council of State found it plausible, but no examination of the tool's output is described."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 4 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'; 'heeft voldoende aannemelijk gemaakt dat hij met het oog op het opmaken van zijn bronnenlijst gebruik heeft gemaakt van generatieve AI. Dat is een geoorloofde vorm van AI-gebruik. Dat daarbij niet-bestaande bronnen in het verwijzingsapparaat zijn terechtgekomen, komt evenwel voor zijn rekening.'; 'voor de duur van een half jaar een passender maatregel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 4 March 2026 the university's appeals board for examinations upheld his administrative appeal, finding that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to compile his reference list, a permitted use, that the non-existent sources were his responsibility, and that a half-year exclusion was a more fitting measure.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 6 mei 2026 heeft de examencommissie de scriptie van'; 'tot en met 29 juli 2026 uitgesloten van deelname aan het bachelorscriptietraject en enig ander tentamen'; 'Bij beslissing van 8 juli 2026 heeft het CBE het door'; 'ingestelde administratief beroep ongegrond verklaard'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 6 May 2026 the exam board again declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 29 July 2026, and on 8 July 2026 the appeals board dismissed his appeal against that decision.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 14 oktober 2026'; 'al deze juiste bronnen in een eerdere versie van de scriptie, vóór het gebruik van AI, in verkorte vorm zijn terug te vinden'; 'heeft het CBE onvoldoende aannemelijk gemaakt dat sprake is van meer dan alleen een onzorgvuldigheid'; 'alsnog worden beoordeeld, met inachtneming van wat de Afdeling heeft overwogen'; 'Het is aan de examinator of, en, zo ja, welke gevolgen hij in dat kader aan de geconstateerde onzorgvuldigheid verbindt voor het cijfer.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State geeft hem gelijk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 14 October 2026 the Council of State found that the appeals board had not made it plausible that there was more than carelessness, so fraud was not established beyond reasonable doubt; it noted that the correct sources were in an earlier version written before AI was used, annulled the decisions of 8 July and 6 May 2026, ordered that the thesis still be assessed, and left it to the examiner whether the carelessness affects the grade.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is the decision itself."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'te wijten is dat hij na het gebruik van AI niet nogmaals zelfstandig alle bronvermeldingen in de voetnoten heeft gecontroleerd'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De Raad van State stelt expliciet dat hij de bronvermeldingen na het gebruik van AI zelfstandig had moeten controleren.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Council of State held that the student was at fault for not independently checking all the references again after using AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding; it bears on the student's own share in the errors."}],"effects":[{"label":"bachelor thesis declared invalid and exclusion from the thesis track and faculty exams, later annulled","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the Council of State ruling 202602163/1/A2 of 14 October 2026 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088) from the rechtspraak.nl open data service, HTTP 200; the student is anonymised in the ruling.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ruling-202602163"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://privacy-web.nl/samenvatting/ai-verzint-bronnen-in-scriptie-raad-van-state-ziet-geen-fraude/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. PONT Data & Privacy editorial summary of the same ruling, 15 October 2026, HTTP 200, full text read; it derives from the ruling and is not independent of it.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ruling-202602163"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the student used; the ruling does not name it.","Whether the exclusion orders kept him from any particular exam or delayed his studies, and what grade the thesis eventually received.","The exact wording of the incorrect references and how the examiner discovered them."],"geography":{"basis":"The sanctioning exam board belongs to the Faculty of Law of Leiden University and the appeal was decided by the Council of State, both in the Netherlands. The ruling withholds the student's place of residence, so that field is left unknown.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Council of State's ruling of 14 October 2026: the student's explanation, found plausible by the university appeals board and the court, is that a generative AI tool he used to order his reference list distorted or invented seven references; the exam board treated those references as evidence of AI-enabled fraud, invalidated the thesis and excluded him from exams, and the court annulled the sanction because only carelessness had been shown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Council of State ruling records the student's explanation that the AI tool he used to prepare his footnote references did not carry over all sources from his draft correctly and that it distorted some references (wrong years or author initials) and invented others; the university's appeals board found he had plausibly shown he used generative AI for his reference list, and the Council of State found his explanation plausible, noting that the correct sources were in an earlier version written before he used AI. The exam board itself attributed the fictitious references to generative AI and sanctioned him for them. The AI tool's output, returned to the student and kept in his thesis, is what the sanction was based on.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Leiden law student's thesis invalidated and exams barred over references he says an AI tool distorted or invented; Council of State annuls fraud sanction","summary":"A law student at Leiden University used a generative AI tool to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list. Seven of the thesis's footnote references (one of them appearing twice, out of 36 footnotes with references) were wrong in the final version; according to his explanation, the tool had distorted some of them, for example with wrong years or author initials, and invented others. On 29 January 2026 the faculty's exam board declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and every exam in the faculty's programmes, reasoning that the fictitious references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud. The university's appeals board for examinations found in March 2026 that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to prepare his reference list, which it called a permitted use, but held him responsible for the non-existent sources; the exam board then re-imposed the invalidation with an exclusion until 29 July 2026, and the appeals board upheld that in July. On 14 October 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Raad van State) found his explanation plausible, held that no more than carelessness had been shown, and annulled the sanction; the thesis must now be graded, and the examiner may take the incorrect references into account in the grade.","incidentDate":"2026-01-29","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-14","aiSystem":"An unnamed generative AI tool that the student used to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list, according to the Council of State ruling","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The exam board declared the student's thesis invalid and excluded him from the thesis track and the faculty's exams, first until January 2027 and then until 29 July 2026, over references that according to his accepted explanation an AI tool had distorted or invented; the Council of State annulled the sanction on 14 October 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the appellant student, who used the AI tool himself (ruling, paragraphs 1 to 6).","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088","primarySourceLabel":"Raad van State, ruling 202602163/1/A2 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088), 14 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:05:14.201173+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:05:14.201173+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","thesis","non-existent-references","fraud-sanction-annulled","netherlands","administrative-court","own-use"]},{"id":"2026-purdue-computer-science-course-mass-ai-cheating-accusation-students-dropped-allegations-withdrawn","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'sent an email to more than 200 students in his CS 240 class last week, alleging he had caught them cheating on assignments with AI tools'; 'He included a form questioning AI use on each assignment, giving accused students a chance to admit or deny the allegations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'sent an email to more than 200 students accusing them of using AI to cheat on their assignments, as reported by the Journal & Courier'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The professor of Purdue's CS 240 course emailed more than 200 students in the class alleging that he had caught them cheating on assignments with AI tools, with a form on which to admit or deny AI use on each assignment.","causal_attribution":"The professor's allegation, as reported by the newspaper; the AI use itself is not established."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Failure to respond will result in a grade of'; 'Failure to respond will also result in an unfavorable letter being sent to the dean of students along with further disciplinary action'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The email warned that failure to respond would result in an F for the course and an unfavourable letter to the dean of students along with further disciplinary action.","causal_attribution":"Quoted from the email by the Journal & Courier."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Sent on the deadline for dropping a class, students went into a frenzy, and more than half the class unenrolled'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'over half of the accused opted to drop the class'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The email was sent on the deadline for dropping a class, and more than half of the class unenrolled.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper connects the withdrawals to the email and its timing; Plagiarism Today restates the figure as over half of the accused."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'without telling us which ones we used AI on, his detection methods, his timing'; 'seems to have bypassed'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A student told the newspaper that the main objection was that the professor had not said which assignments were flagged or how they were detected, and the newspaper reports he seems to have bypassed the one-on-one meeting that Purdue's faculty guide describes as the first step.","causal_attribution":"An unnamed student's account and the newspaper's own reading of the faculty guide."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it was announced that allegations of cheating and AI use thus far in the semester are dropped, and anyone can re-enroll in the course'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The allegations were dropped, and students were allowed to re-enroll in the course'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"At a class discussion called by the department, it was announced that the allegations of cheating and AI use so far in the semester were dropped and that anyone could re-enrol in the course.","causal_attribution":"Reported by the newspaper; Plagiarism Today relies on it."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'still use the AI detection tool going forward'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'was only applied after all but two of the assignments had been graded'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The professor said he would keep using the AI detection tool, and no source read describes what the detection method was.","causal_attribution":"The newspaper's report of the professor's statement; Plagiarism Today adds that the method was new and was applied after most assignments had been graded, without describing it."}],"effects":[{"label":"more than 200 students accused of AI cheating and warned of a failing grade and a letter to the dean","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"more than half of the class dropped the course at the deadline before the allegations were withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/cheating-scandal-in-purdue-class-sparks-debate-over-ai-s-place-in-college/ar-AA21kWFG","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full through the MSN syndication of the Lafayette Journal & Courier article.","independence_group":"purdue-cs240-journal-courier-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/04/22/cheating-allegations-lead-to-chaos-at-purdue-university/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full. A commentary that relies on the Journal & Courier and the Purdue Exponent for its facts, so it shares the Journal & Courier's independence group.","independence_group":"purdue-cs240-journal-courier-apr-2026"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["What detection method or tool the professor used and how it decided which students to accuse.","How many of the accused students had in fact used AI.","How many students re-enrolled and whether any student was later penalised.","What the Purdue Exponent follow-up of 14 October 2026 reports; it could not be read."],"geography":{"basis":"The course and the accusation took place at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, as the Journal & Courier dateline and text state. The students' own countries are not stated.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete institutional response to suspected AI use: a class-wide accusation of more than 200 students with a threat of failing grades at the drop deadline, after which more than half of the class withdrew before the allegations were dropped. The facts rest on the Journal & Courier's reporting.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the professor's response to suspected AI use: he emailed more than 200 students alleging they had cheated on programming assignments with AI tools and warned that non-response would bring an F and a letter to the dean, and more than half of the class dropped the course. The allegations were later dropped. No source describes the detection method or any AI output about the students, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Over half of a Purdue programming class dropped the course after the professor emailed 200-plus students alleging AI cheating; allegations later withdrawn","summary":"In April 2026 the professor teaching CS 240, a programming course at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, emailed more than 200 students in the class alleging that he had caught them cheating on assignments with AI tools, according to the Lafayette Journal & Courier. The email gave the students a form on which to admit or deny AI use on each assignment and warned that failure to respond would result in an F for the course and an unfavourable letter to the dean of students. It was sent on the deadline for dropping a class, and more than half of the class unenrolled. A student quoted by the newspaper said the main objection was that he had not said which assignments were flagged or how they were detected. After a weekend of attention on social media and a class discussion called by the department, it was announced that the allegations of cheating and AI use so far in the semester were dropped and that anyone could re-enrol. The professor said he would keep using his AI detection tool. No source describes what that detection method was, and how many of the accused had used AI is not known.","incidentDate":"2026-04-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-04-21","aiSystem":"No AI system is identified. The professor alleged that students used AI tools on programming assignments; the detection method he relied on is not described in any source read","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI coding tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"More than 200 students were accused of AI cheating and warned of a failing grade and a dean's letter at the drop deadline, and more than half of the class dropped the course before the allegations were withdrawn (Journal & Courier).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":200,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"More than 200 students received the accusation email (Journal & Courier; Plagiarism Today), so 200 is a documented minimum. They are counted under other people harmed because their AI use is alleged and unestablished.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/cheating-scandal-in-purdue-class-sparks-debate-over-ai-s-place-in-college/ar-AA21kWFG","primarySourceLabel":"Lafayette Journal & Courier (via MSN), 21 April 2026: Cheating scandal in Purdue class sparks debate over AI's place in college","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:06:28.328183+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:06:28.328183+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","computer-science","allegations-withdrawn","ai-involvement-suspected"]},{"id":"2026-turnitin-ai-checker-marks-ap-research-student-annotations-100-percent-ai-teacher-accusation-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'i am currently taking ap research, and today my teacher told me that my source annotations were found to be'; '100% ai'; 'from turnitin'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says that on the day of the post their teacher told them their AP Research source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin.","causal_attribution":"Student's account of what the teacher said; the detector report was not published."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'i did not use ai nor would i have to for writing ANNOTATIONS'; 'my document history shows me typing over the course of an hour'; 'some of the sentences in my annotations i pulled nearly identical to my notes written beforehand'; 'i have taken a research course with the same rigor and writing assignment requirements with this teacher the year before, and have never in my life been faced with ai accusations'; 'we also had to do an assignment before the annotations where we bullet notes, facts, and general statistics we plan to write about'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says they did not use AI, that their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour, that some sentences closely follow notes written beforehand for a class assignment, and that they faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the previous year.","causal_attribution":"Student's own account; the document history was not published, and one commenter doubted the account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'my teacher told me that the feedback from turnitin ai checker never ends up being a false accusation'; 'my teacher told me we would talk about it at a later time'; 'my teacher is showing no sign of going against the turnitin ai checker'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says the teacher said Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation, said they would talk about it later, and showed no sign of going against the checker.","causal_attribution":"Student's account of the teacher's statements."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'it honestly makes me really upset'; 'how would i even defend myself'; reply by the poster: 'i feel so insulted'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says the accusation makes them really upset, that they feel insulted, and that they do not know how to defend themselves.","causal_attribution":"Student's own statement of the effect."}],"effects":[{"label":"accused by a teacher of AI use after a reported Turnitin AI-checker result of 100% AI on source annotations, which the student disputes (poster's account)","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"distress and uncertainty about how to answer the accusation (poster's account)","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1wumzxm/teacher_accusing_me_of_ai/","kind":"forum_post","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-01: full self-text and the thread's 6 comments retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID. The poster handle is not recorded.","independence_group":"reddit-ap-research-student"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["The local date: the post says 'today' and was published at 01:46 UTC on 1 October 2026, which is 30 September or 1 October depending on the student's time zone.","The student's age, school and country.","What the Turnitin report showed and how the teacher used it.","Whether the result affected the student's grade or led to any academic-integrity process."],"geography":{"basis":"The post names no school, place or country, and the course name is not used to infer one. Unknown after review.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter's public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a student accused of AI use on the strength of a reported AI-detector result, described with attribution and without corroboration. The student may be a minor, so no handle, school or place is recorded.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-01"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The student reports that the teacher attributed a '100% ai' result on the student's annotations to Turnitin's AI checker; the report was not published. The relation recorded is the detector's reported claim about the authorship of the student's work, which the teacher relied on.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about"]},"name":"First-person forum account: a student in an AP Research course says their teacher reported that Turnitin's AI checker found their source annotations '100% AI' and said the checker never gives false accusations; the student says they wrote the work themselves and can show document history","summary":"In a public post to r/ApplyingToCollege early on 1 October 2026 (UTC), a student taking the Advanced Placement (AP) Research course writes that their teacher told them that day that their source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin. The student says they did not use AI. They say their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour and that some sentences closely follow notes they wrote for an earlier assignment. They also say they had faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the year before. By the student's account, the teacher said the matter would be discussed later and that Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation. The student says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves. No grade or disciplinary outcome is reported. The account is uncorroborated, and one commenter doubted it.","incidentDate":"2026-09-30","incidentEndDate":"2026-10-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-01","aiSystem":"Turnitin's AI-writing detection ('turnitin ai checker' in the student's words), named by the teacher who reported its result to the student; the report itself was not published","aiProduct":"Turnitin AI-text detector (reported)","aiCompany":"Turnitin","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A student reports that a teacher accused them of AI use on the strength of a Turnitin AI-checker result of '100% AI' on their source annotations, which the student disputes, and says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves (first-person account, uncorroborated).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the student whose work the detector result concerned and who reports the accusation and its effect. The student did not use the detector, so they are counted among people harmed through institutional use. Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/1wumzxm/teacher_accusing_me_of_ai/","primarySourceLabel":"r/ApplyingToCollege, 1 October 2026: \"teacher accusing me of ai\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-01T03:11:50.19209+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-01T03:11:50.19209+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","reddit","turnitin","ai-text-detector","academic-integrity","education","false-positive-alleged","made-claim-about"]}]}