Fair Writing Record
The Fair Writing Record Assignment
A writing assignment that judges the work and the process behind it, instead of guessing whether AI was involved. The record belongs to the student, and they can see every time it is opened.
Detection asks the wrong question
An AI detector gives you a likelihood about a piece of text. It cannot tell you which sentence the student wrote, what they read first, or what they were thinking about when they got stuck. When it is wrong, the student is arguing against a number with nothing but their word.
The Fair Writing Record Assignment changes the question. Instead of asking whether the writing looks like a machine wrote it, it keeps a plain, readable account of how the writing was made, and hands that account to both the student and the teacher.
Who it is for
One record, three different problems solved
Fairness and transparency are not abstract here. Each person in the room carries a different version of the same problem, and the record answers each one differently.
Students
"The detector says 87%. Now you have to prove you wrote it."
You own a record of your own work: your drafts, your time on task, the questions you asked, and a replay you can show to anyone who asks.
Fairness: Nothing in it is a suspicion score, and nothing in it accuses you.
Transparency: You can see every time a teacher or principal opens it.
Teachers
"You suspect something, but a percentage is not evidence you can put in front of a family."
The draft history, paste events and helper transcript sit in one place, next to the prompt you actually assigned.
Fairness: You judge the work with context, and you can explain how you reached that judgement.
Transparency: Everything you rely on is material the student can read too.
Principals
"Two families, two teachers, two different standards for the same accusation."
One documented evidence practice across classrooms, with a consistent record format and every staff access logged.
Fairness: Decisions rest on the same record, not on which student was suspected.
Transparency: The process is explainable to a parent, and staff access is visible to the student.
How it works
Four steps, and the last one is a record you can both read
Step 1
You set the task
Paste the prompt, add your lesson context, and say how students may use the helper. The task gets its own share code.
Step 2
You set up the helper
Same setup as the chatbot create menu: teaching style, grade, Ontario expectations, learning outcomes and your own instructions.
Step 3
Students join in one click
A link and a QR code drop straight into the task. Students sign in with their own account, so the record belongs to them.
Step 4
The writing is the evidence
They write in the workspace, ask the helper for guidance, and submit. The process record is built as they go, not reconstructed afterwards.
The helper guides. It never writes.
Every task carries its own writing helper, configured by you. Students can ask it for a concept, a definition or the next thinking step. It will not hand over sentences, paragraphs or an outline that stands in for the answer, and it says so plainly when a student asks.
What a student sees when they ask for the answer
Can you just write my opening paragraph?
I won't write it for you, and that isn't me being difficult: the paragraph is the part your teacher needs to see you think through. Start with your claim about the membrane's structure. What does the phospholipid bilayer actually stop from crossing, and what gets through?
The exchange is saved in the student's record, so the reasoning behind the writing is visible when you read it.
Inside the record
A process record, not a surveillance log
The line is drawn clearly, and it is drawn in favour of the student. Here is exactly what is kept, and what is refused.
What the record holds
Time on task
How long the workspace was open, and how much of that time the student was actually typing.
Draft snapshots
Periodic snapshots of the writing, so the essay can be replayed from blank page to submitted draft.
Paste events
When text was pasted in, and what was pasted. Pasting your own notes from another tab is allowed and visible.
Helper conversation
Every question the student asked the helper and every reply, so their reasoning can be shown rather than guessed.
The submitted text
The draft exactly as it stood at submission, kept separate from the working copy.
Word counts
Plain counts over time, offered as context. Never converted into a suspicion score.
What it never does
No mouse or keystroke profiling
Nothing is recorded about where the cursor went or how individual keys were pressed.
No clipboard reading
The student's clipboard is never read. Only the paste they chose to make is noted.
No AI detection percentage
You will not find a probability that the writing was AI generated, because we do not produce one.
No automated verdict
The record never accuses anyone. It gives a professional the material to make their own judgement.
Every time a teacher or principal opens a student's record, the access is written into the student's own process log, so they can see who read their work and when.
Side by side
A guess about the text, against a record of the work
A percentage that says how likely the text looks machine written.
The draft at every stage, the time spent, and the questions the student asked.
Nothing about this student. It compares patterns to other text.
The writing was produced inside the assignment, across the record's timestamps.
The student has to argue their innocence with no counter evidence.
The replay and helper transcript are already there for both of you to read.
That careful, formal writing looks suspicious.
That the process of writing is the part that counts.
Whoever runs the tool, usually without the student knowing the result.
The student, their teacher, and school staff, with every view logged.
A conversation about cheating, opened by an accusation.
A conversation about the work, opened by evidence the student can see.
What you are handed
A percentage that says how likely the text looks machine written.
The draft at every stage, the time spent, and the questions the student asked.
What it can prove
Nothing about this student. It compares patterns to other text.
The writing was produced inside the assignment, across the record's timestamps.
When it is wrong
The student has to argue their innocence with no counter evidence.
The replay and helper transcript are already there for both of you to read.
What it teaches students
That careful, formal writing looks suspicious.
That the process of writing is the part that counts.
Who can see it
Whoever runs the tool, usually without the student knowing the result.
The student, their teacher, and school staff, with every view logged.
What happens next
A conversation about cheating, opened by an accusation.
A conversation about the work, opened by evidence the student can see.
Everyone can see who read it
The student
Owns the record, reads the full replay, and sees every access entry in their process log.
The assigning teacher
Reads the records for tasks they assigned. Nothing else in the class is opened to them.
The student's log
Each view is written down with who opened it and when, before the record is read.
Nothing here is fed into a suspicion score, and no record produces a verdict on its own. It informs your professional judgement, which is the only judgement in the room. Read more about how student data is handled.
Already in your account
What you get with every task
- A share code, student link and QR code for each task
- A task-specific helper with your teaching style and expectations
- Autosaved drafts students can return to on any device
- Replay of the writing from blank page to submission
- Paste events and helper questions kept as visible context
- An access log the student can read at any time
The thinking behind it
What a fair writing record can and cannot show
The honest limits of process evidence, written for the teacher who has to defend a judgement.
Read articleFor students: when the process is the only evidence you have
What you can show about your own writing when a percentage says otherwise.
Read articleFor principals: a writing-evidence practice you can explain
Consistency across classrooms, and access that is accountable to students.
Read articleWhy AI detectors harm students
What a detection percentage actually measures, and who pays for its errors.
Read articleRun your next writing assignment fairly
Create the task, share the code, and read the record instead of guessing.
Get started free