Case 01: Undisclosed AI-Generated Essay Outline

Evidence considered

• The submitted essay and its drafting history, showing substantial original composition over several sessions.
• The unit’s assessment instructions and AI-use declaration requirement.
• The student’s account: the outline structured the essay, but every paragraph was written by the student.

Reasoning

Applying the decision framework in order: AI use of this kind was permitted for planning, so the use itself is not a breach. The substantive intellectual work — argument, evidence, prose — was the student’s own, and authorship is preserved: the student can explain and defend the essay. The breach is narrow and specific: the required disclosure was not made. That is a genuine policy breach, but of the acknowledgement rule, not of authorship or honesty about the work’s content.

Decision

Disclosure problem. The appropriate response addresses the acknowledgement failure — for example an educative outcome or a penalty tied to the declaration requirement — not a contract-cheating response.

Alternative interpretation

A stricter reading could treat any undisclosed AI use as dishonesty per se, reasoning that the declaration exists precisely so markers know how work was produced. On that view the case edges toward misconduct. This reading is defensible but disproportionate where the underlying use was permitted and the work is authentically the student’s.

Confidence

High. The facts are clear, the applicable rule is explicit, and the only contested question is proportionality of response.

Procedural fairness considerations

• The student should be told exactly which rule was breached (disclosure, not authorship) and shown the declaration requirement.
• The outcome should not be recorded or communicated as contract cheating.
• The student should have the opportunity to explain why disclosure was missed (e.g. unclear instructions), which is relevant to penalty.