{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T06:15:59.913Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"complaint-upheld","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"regulatory","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":0,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"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":"2025-student-complaints-ombudsman-upholds-autistic-students-complaint-over-ai-misconduct-zero-mark-cleared-on-reconsideration","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A student with autism was invited to respond to allegations that they had included large sections of AI-generated content in an essay submission.'; 'The student said that they had not used AI to write their essay. They provided details of their essay preparations, planning and notes.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA case summary, a student with autism was invited to respond to allegations of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay, denied using AI, and provided details of their preparation, planning and notes.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the record; one source; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'A disciplinary panel considered the student’s written evidence and also compared the essay to some other examples of the student’s work. It decided that academic misconduct had occurred. As a penalty, the student received a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass.'; 'The provider rejected the student’s appeal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, a disciplinary panel considered the student's written evidence and compared the essay with other examples of the student's work, found academic misconduct, and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the student's appeal.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the provider's decisions; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They raised concerns about the reliability of AI detection software used by the provider. The student explained that the detection software had previously flagged another essay they had written for suspected use of AI but in that case it had been agreed that the student had not used AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In the appeal the student raised concerns about the reliability of the provider's AI detection software, saying it had previously flagged another essay of theirs for suspected AI use when it was agreed they had not used AI.","causal_attribution":"The student's account as summarised by the OIA; the earlier flag is not independently described; reported."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We upheld the student’s complaint (we decided it was Justified).'; 'We were satisfied that the panel had engaged with the substance of the student’s essay, and not only relied on the AI detection software report.'; 'We concluded that the panel had not given sufficient reasons for the decision it had reached'; 'We recommended that the provider reconsider the case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The OIA found the complaint Justified: it was satisfied the panel had not relied only on the AI detection software report, but found it had not properly considered the student's points and evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons; it recommended reconsideration and a review of the provider's regulations.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's own decision; documented."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The student let us know that when the provider reconsidered the case, it decided that there had not been any academic misconduct.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the student, when the provider reconsidered the case it decided there had been no academic misconduct.","causal_attribution":"The student's report to the OIA, relayed by the OIA; the provider's reconsideration decision is not inspected; reported."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We are the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The OIA is the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales.","causal_attribution":"The body's own description; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass for alleged AI use, before the provider found no misconduct (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, on reconsideration, the provider found no misconduct (student's report to the OIA)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","kind":"regulator_decision_summary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). OIA case summary in its July 2025 series on AI and academic misconduct (page metadata dc.date 2025-07-08). The OIA anonymises the student and the provider; the outcome of the reconsideration is what the student told the OIA.","independence_group":"oia-case-summary-cs072501"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/about-us/","kind":"official_page","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-23 (HTTP 200). The OIA describes itself as the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales; used only to identify the body, not to locate the provider.","independence_group":"oia-about-page"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","accessibility"],"unknowns":["When the essay was submitted and the misconduct decision made.","Which provider and which detection software were involved, and what the report said.","How much weight the panel gave the detection report relative to the comparison with other work.","Whether the student's record and mark were restored after the reconsideration."],"geography":{"basis":"The OIA reviews complaints about higher-education providers in England and Wales, but the summary does not name the provider or say where it is, and the OIA is not a court; no country is recorded from the scheme's remit alone. The jurisdiction field gives GB as the scheme's jurisdiction.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published because the higher-education ombudsman reports that an AI detection report was before a panel that gave an autistic student a zero for alleged AI use, and that it upheld the student's complaint about that decision. On the student's report to the OIA, the provider then found no misconduct. The student and the provider are anonymous, the event date is not given, and the detection report's role is stated as the OIA describes it.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The OIA summary says the provider used AI detection software, that the student challenged its reliability, and that the disciplinary panel had the software's report, which the OIA found the panel did not rely on alone, together with comparisons with the student's other work when it found misconduct and gave a mark of zero. The detection report thus informed a human decision about the student. The summary does not give the report's score or name the software, and the panel's weighting of the report against the other evidence is not stated.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Ombudsman upholds autistic student's complaint over AI-misconduct zero mark from panel with detection-software report; student says provider later cleared them","summary":"A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student with autism who was accused of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay. The student denied using AI and submitted planning and notes. A disciplinary panel, which had the provider's AI detection software report and compared the essay with other work by the student, found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the appeal, in which the student said the same software had earlier flagged another of their essays in a case where it had been agreed they had not used AI. The OIA found the complaint Justified: the panel had not properly considered the student's evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons. It recommended reconsideration and changes to the provider's rules, and the student told the OIA that on reconsideration the provider decided there had been no misconduct. The provider and the software are not named.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-08","aiSystem":"AI detection software used by the provider, whose report the disciplinary panel had alongside comparisons with the student's other work; not named in the OIA summary","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI-text detector","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the OIA case summary, an autistic student who denied using AI received a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass from a panel that had an AI detection report; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and, the student told the OIA, the provider later found no misconduct.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a mark of zero with reassessment capped at a pass and later cleared, according to the OIA case summary. The student did not use the detection software, so is counted among other people harmed.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072501/","primarySourceLabel":"OIA case summary CS072501, AI and academic misconduct, July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:15:40.620144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","higher-education","ai-detection","zero-mark","ombudsman","autism","complaint-upheld"]}]}