{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-23T06:56:59.206Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"zero-mark","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"unknown","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":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"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"]}]}