{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T06:09:30.630Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"dissertation","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":0,"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":"2025-student-complaints-ombudsman-finds-zero-mark-reasonable-for-dissertation-with-unacknowledged-ai-use","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'During the viva, the student told the examiners that they had used AI to help them write their dissertation.'; 'The student agreed that the AI material was not referenced.'; 'the student had not acknowledged their use of AI on the form.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA case summary, a student asked to attend a viva over concerns about their dissertation told the examiners that they had used AI to help write it, agreed that the AI material was not referenced, and had not declared the AI use on the form the provider required.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the record it reviewed, including the student's own disclosure; one source; reported."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'It decided that the student had committed academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero.'; 'The provider rejected the student’s appeal.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, the provider's panel decided that the student had committed academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero, and the provider rejected the student's appeal.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the provider's decisions; the provider's own records are not inspected; reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They were disappointed that they received no credit for being honest about using AI in the viva, or for the time and effort they invested in their dissertation.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the OIA, the student complained to it, disappointed at receiving no credit for being honest about the AI use in the viva or for the time and effort invested in the dissertation.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's summary of the student's complaint; reported."},{"id":"c4","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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we found it Not Justified).'; 'the penalty applied was proportionate and in line with its procedures.'; 'It was satisfied that the student’s attention had been properly drawn to this information, including via a previous academic misconduct process.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The OIA found the complaint Not Justified, concluding that the provider's final decision was reasonable, that the student had a fair opportunity to respond and that the penalty was proportionate and in line with the provider's procedures; it noted that the student's attention had been drawn to the AI policy, including via a previous academic misconduct process.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's own decision; documented."}],"effects":[{"label":"mark of zero on a dissertation for unreferenced, undeclared AI use (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the student was disappointed to receive no credit for disclosing the AI use (OIA summary)","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.oiahe.org.uk/resources-and-publications/case-summaries/ai-and-academic-misconduct-cs072503/","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.","independence_group":"oia-case-summary-cs072503"},{"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":["own_use"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["When the dissertation was submitted and the misconduct decision made.","Which provider and which AI tool were involved.","How much of the dissertation the AI material made up.","Whether the student had other consequences, such as a capped resit or an effect on the degree."],"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 record's jurisdiction field gives GB as the scheme's jurisdiction.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a response to AI use: the higher-education ombudsman reports that a student who disclosed unreferenced, undeclared AI help with a dissertation received a mark of zero, and it found that sanction reasonable. The student and the provider are anonymous in the source, and the event date is not given.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-23"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The OIA summary says the student told the examiners that AI had been used to help write the dissertation and agreed that the AI material was not referenced; the provider found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero for that use. The penalty is the institution's response to the AI use. No output of the AI tool toward the student is described, so no relation describing the AI system's own action is recorded. The tool is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"Student complaints ombudsman finds a zero mark reasonable for a dissertation the student said was written with help from unacknowledged AI","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 who was called to a viva over concerns about a dissertation and told the examiners there that AI had been used to help write it. The student agreed the AI material was not referenced and had not declared the AI use on the form the provider required. A panel found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero; the provider rejected the student's appeal. The student complained to the OIA, saying they received no credit for being honest about using AI or for the time and effort invested. The OIA found the complaint Not Justified, concluding that the provider followed its procedures, gave the student a fair opportunity to respond and applied a proportionate penalty. The summary does not name the provider, give the date of the events or say which AI tool was used.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-07-08","aiSystem":"An AI tool the student used to help write a dissertation, according to the student's statement in the viva as summarised by the OIA; the tool is not named","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the OIA case summary, a student who said in a viva that AI had helped write their dissertation, without referencing or declaring it, received a mark of zero; the ombudsman found the decision reasonable.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One student, given a mark of zero, according to the OIA case summary. The student used the AI tool, so is counted among participant users.","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-cs072503/","primarySourceLabel":"OIA case summary CS072503, AI and academic misconduct, July 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-23T03:14:17.472302+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-23T03:14:17.472302+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","higher-education","dissertation","zero-mark","ombudsman","consequential-response"]},{"id":"2025-st-andrews-medical-student-dissertation-ai-misconduct-finding-upheld-then-overturned","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'to receive an academic misconduct alert saying the dissertation he had spent his summer writing had been flagged as being AI-generated'; 'was assessed by two human markers'; 'One of them raised concerns over the potential use of AI.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student received an academic misconduct alert saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated, after one of two human markers raised concerns about potential AI use.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's report of the student's account and of the university's description of the marking."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The marker's notes - seen by the BBC - raise concerns about the \"polished/uniform tone\" of the work'; 'noting the \"consistent flawless grammar and similar sentence structure with no variation in style\"'; 'a \"formulaic paragraph structure that follows a typical AI pattern'; 'a high usage of \"em\" dashes'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The marker's notes cite the work's polished, uniform tone, consistent grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes as grounds for concern.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's description of notes it says it saw."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he received the link five minutes after the start time for the hearing'; 'A week later, he received the decision that the allegations of AI usage had been upheld.'; 'This meant his mark would be capped at seven, just enough to pass'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"After a virtual hearing whose link the student says arrived five minutes late, the allegations of AI use were upheld and his mark was capped at seven, just enough to pass.","causal_attribution":"The student's account as reported by the BBC."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'The university accepted the appeal, recognising that the late arrival of the link affected his ability to present his case. He was invited to attend another hearing in mid-November.'; 'This time the university decided not to uphold the allegations.'; 'He eventually got his full mark for his dissertation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The university accepted the appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations; the student later received his full mark.","causal_attribution":"The BBC's report; the university's statement confirms that the appeal was upheld."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was consumed by worries throughout the whole of that semester and it affected his studies.'; 'had to defer his exams for a semester and sit them in the middle of the summer. As a result, his graduation has been delayed until December.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester and that it affected his studies, that he deferred his exams for a semester and that his graduation was delayed until December.","causal_attribution":"The student's account of the consequences."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'the decision to uphold the student's appeal related solely to a procedural issue concerning the arrangements for the hearing'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The university says the appeal was upheld solely because of a procedural issue concerning the hearing arrangements.","causal_attribution":"The university's statement to the BBC."}],"effects":[{"label":"misconduct finding of AI use upheld at first, capping the dissertation mark at a bare pass","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"semester of worry, deferred exams and delayed graduation (student account)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"allegations not upheld at the second hearing; full mark awarded","claim_id":"c4","direction":"positive"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crelev8gw5xo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English: the article text in full as served on 12 October 2026. An earlier syndicated copy on MSN said the decision would be reflected on his GMC professional record; the current BBC text says the matter may have to be declared when applying for provisional registration. This record uses the current BBC wording.","independence_group":"bbc"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["unknown"],"contexts":["education"],"unknowns":["The panels' written decisions and the evidence each panel considered.","Whether any AI-detection tool was used at any stage; the report describes none.","The exact dates of the alert and the hearings beyond August and mid-November of the previous year.","The university's account of the case beyond its statement on the appeal."],"geography":{"basis":"The dissertation, the hearings and the appeal were at the University of St Andrews. The student's country of residence is not recorded.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete account of a student penalised on a finding of AI use that the university later did not uphold, reported by the BBC from the student's interview, the marker's notes and a university statement. No AI system's role in the finding is established, and the record says so. The student is not named in this record.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-12"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The harm is the university's response to suspected AI use: a human marker raised concerns that the dissertation was AI-generated, citing its tone, grammar, paragraph structure and dashes, and a panel first upheld the allegation. The student says he did not use AI, and a second hearing did not uphold it. The report describes no AI-detection tool and no AI output about the student, so the relation is recorded as unknown.","status":"suspected"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"St Andrews medical student says a marker's suspicion of AI use led to an upheld misconduct finding, overturned at a second hearing after appeal","summary":"The BBC reported on 10 August 2026 that a University of St Andrews medical student received an academic misconduct alert in August of the previous year saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated. According to the university, the dissertation was assessed by two human markers, one of whom raised concerns about possible AI use; the marker's notes, seen by the BBC, cite a polished, uniform tone, flawless grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes. The student says the link to his virtual hearing arrived five minutes after the start time. A week after the hearing the allegations were upheld, which capped his mark at a bare pass. The university accepted his appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations. He later received his full mark. The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester, that he deferred his exams and that his graduation was delayed until December. The university says the appeal succeeded solely on a procedural issue. The report describes no AI-detection tool, and the student says he did not use AI.","incidentDate":"2025-08-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-08-10","aiSystem":"No AI system is identified. A human marker suspected that the student's dissertation was AI-generated; the student says he did not use AI, and the report describes no AI-detection tool","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A student says a misconduct finding of AI use, first upheld and later overturned, capped his dissertation mark at a bare pass for a period, left him consumed by worries for a semester, led him to defer his exams and delayed his graduation (BBC report based on the student's account, the marker's notes and a university statement).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the student whose dissertation was the subject of the misconduct finding. He is counted under other people harmed because no use of AI by the student is established.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crelev8gw5xo","primarySourceLabel":"BBC News, 10 August 2026: \"I was accused of using AI in my dissertation but I wrote it all myself\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-12T03:32:46.789205+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-12T03:32:46.789205+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-use-accusation","academic-integrity","education","appeal-upheld","scotland","ai-involvement-suspected"]}]}