Digital assessment integrity: use AI without losing trust

Separate workplace practice from assessment permission

Digital occupations routinely use powerful tools, but a tool being normal at work does not automatically make it permitted in an assessment. Read the current instructions for the standard, version and method. Ask for written clarification where rules are unclear, including code assistants, translation, transcription, generative text, image generation and search tools. Ofqual’s April 2026 advice highlights the malpractice risks created by AI and the importance of clear expectations. Build the briefing around what the apprentice may do in this particular assessment, not a blanket claim that all AI is allowed or all AI is prohibited.

Write a plain-language tool briefing

Give apprentices examples they can apply. Identify which tools are permitted, for what purpose, at what stage and with what disclosure. Distinguish learning support from the creation of submitted evidence and from live assessment assistance. Explain what to do if an embedded feature activates unexpectedly, such as a meeting assistant or writing suggestion. Ask the apprentice to explain the rules back using a scenario so misunderstanding can be corrected early. Provide a named contact for questions and update the briefing when instructions or software capabilities change.

Keep an honest account of contribution

Where tool use is permitted, record the tool, date, purpose, relevant prompt or action, the material produced and what the apprentice checked or changed. A log should show judgement rather than create an appearance of authenticity after the event. For code, preserve meaningful development history, tests and decisions where allowed. For analysis, keep sources, transformations, assumptions and validation steps. The apprentice should be able to explain the work in their own words and identify its limitations. A polished output without understanding is weak evidence of personal competence.

Protect employer and personal information

Before using any external tool, check the employer’s and provider’s information-handling rules. Do not paste client records, credentials, source code or sensitive information into a service simply because it is convenient. Use approved accounts and data arrangements, minimise the information shared and use synthetic examples for practice where suitable. Ask the responsible privacy or security lead if unsure. Remember that removing a person’s name may not remove all identifying detail. Keep records of permitted use within your authorised system rather than scattering evidence across personal accounts.

Prepare the digital environment fairly

Check assessment devices, browser extensions, notifications, remote-control applications and meeting features against the approved instructions. Do this in advance, using a proportionate check that respects the apprentice’s privacy and any agreed assistive technology. Explain what will happen if a connection fails, an unauthorised person enters the room or a tool produces an unexpected prompt. Security arrangements should support an authentic assessment without disabling approved access support. Record the agreed setup and provide a practical contact route for incidents on the day.

Respond to a concern with evidence and a fair process

If authenticity is questioned, preserve the relevant material and follow the assessment organisation’s published process. Avoid treating an automated detector score as a complete account of what happened. Seek context through permitted evidence such as versions, logs, source material and the apprentice’s explanation. Keep the concern confidential to those handling it and avoid pre-judging the outcome. The organisation responsible for the assessment must make decisions under its own rules. Tutors can support understanding of the process without altering the original evidence or inventing a retrospective account.

Use a reviewed policy and keep it current

The downloadable AI-use and authenticity log includes an adaptable briefing checklist. It is a preparation template requiring local adaptation and approval, not Avenor’s published final malpractice policy. A useful local policy identifies an owner, scope, permitted uses, prohibited conduct, information handling, disclosure, incident handling and review date. Review it when the assessment instructions or the tool environment changes. Test the language with apprentices and tutors: if they cannot distinguish a permitted activity from a prohibited one, the policy needs clearer examples before assessment begins.

• Confirm permission for the particular method and stage.
• Record permitted assistance honestly and retain meaningful evidence.
• Use approved systems and protect confidential information.
• Follow a fair published process if concerns arise.

Worked example: decide what an AI-assisted artefact can evidence

A software apprentice used an approved coding assistant during workplace development. Before selecting the artefact, the tutor checks the applicable assessment instructions and employer policy. The apprentice's log records the tool, purpose, relevant interaction, output accepted or rejected, tests and personal changes. Repository history and the apprentice's explanation support contribution; client code and credentials stay inside the employer environment. If the intended assessment activity does not permit that assistance or evidence, the team selects a compliant alternative instead of hiding the use.

Common errors include declaring all workplace AI use acceptable in assessment, banning assistive technology without considering approved arrangements, pasting confidential material into public tools, creating a disclosure log after authenticity is questioned, and treating a detector score as proof. The policy owner defines local learning rules; the assessment coordinator obtains method-specific clarification; the employer security or privacy owner approves tools and data; tutors teach transparent use; the apprentice keeps an honest contemporaneous account.

Use the log as a decision path. First confirm whether the tool was permitted at that stage and whether the information handling was authorised. Next decide whether the record can show the apprentice's judgement and checks. If permission is unclear, obtain written clarification before relying on the artefact. If a concern arises, preserve the original material and use the published process; do not edit history or manufacture a cleaner account. Review anonymised lessons and update the briefing when tools or instructions change.