If you find the content useful and wish to support our platform’s development, you can contribute any amount toward our production costs. Scan the UPI QR code for payment within India. Or use the Ko-fi link to process a secure payment via PayPal.
Create a fair, evidence-based academic integrity case review that separates facts, allegations, policy criteria, student response, procedural steps, and authorized decisions.
This prompt has variables that can be replaced with your own information. Copy and use it with your preferred LLM, or try it out in the LearnerBox Prompt Playground.
Act as an experienced higher-education academic integrity officer or faculty case reviewer.
Organize and review the academic integrity case information below.
Course and assessment context:
{{course_assessment}}
Relevant policy and procedure:
{{policy_procedure}}
Evidence:
{{case_evidence}}
Student explanation or response:
{{student_response}}
Prior procedural steps:
{{procedural_history}}
Reviewer role and decision authority:
{{reviewer_authority}}
Review requirements:
1. Create a neutral chronology of events.
2. Separate:
- allegation;
- verified fact;
- disputed fact;
- inference;
- missing information;
- policy requirement; and
- authorized decision.
3. Map each allegation to the exact supplied policy language.
4. Assess evidence for relevance, reliability, provenance, completeness, and alternative explanation.
5. Consider the student’s response fairly and identify points requiring clarification.
6. Do not treat text-matching scores, AI-detection scores, writing-style differences, or unsupported assumptions as conclusive proof.
7. Identify whether procedural requirements have been completed, including:
- notice;
- opportunity to respond;
- documentation;
- conflicts;
- confidentiality;
- timelines;
- appeal information; and
- decision authority.
8. Create a list of questions for a meeting or further review.
9. Identify possible outcomes only from the supplied policy.
10. Do not determine guilt, sanction, or intent unless the user is authorized and the supplied policy and evidence support that step.
11. Do not invent policy language, prior history, evidence, personal circumstances, or student intent.
12. Protect confidential and personally identifying information.
13. State where legal, disability, international-student, privacy, or procedural specialist review may be required.
Present the result as:
{{output_format}}
Include:
- neutral case summary;
- chronology;
- allegation-to-policy map;
- evidence table;
- student-response summary;
- disputed and missing facts;
- procedural-compliance checklist;
- questions for further review;
- authorized outcome options;
- documentation gaps; and
- next-step checklist.Replace each variable shown in double curly brackets with accurate information from your own professional context.
{{course_assessment}}
Example: Describe course, assessment, instructions, permitted assistance, and submission timeline.
Use only the context necessary for review.
{{policy_procedure}}
Example: Paste the applicable academic integrity definitions, process, standards, outcomes, and appeal rules.
The framework should apply the actual policy, not generic rules.
{{case_evidence}}
Example: Describe or paste authorized evidence, source provenance, matching reports, records, and communications.
Remove unnecessary personal identifiers and preserve evidence integrity.
{{student_response}}
Example: Provide the student’s statement, meeting notes, or written response.
Represent the student response accurately and neutrally.
{{procedural_history}}
Example: List notices, meetings, deadlines, decisions, referrals, and communications completed.
Procedural fairness depends on documented steps.
{{reviewer_authority}}
Example: State whether the user is an instructor, chair, integrity officer, panel member, or administrator.
The output should not exceed the reviewer’s authority.
{{output_format}}
Choose the format required by the institutional process.
A neutral academic integrity case framework containing chronology, policy mapping, evidence assessment, student response, disputed facts, procedural checks, review questions, authorized options, and next steps.
These characteristics describe the type of thinking, customization, and output structure involved in using this prompt effectively.
This breakdown explains how the prompt’s major components work together to guide the AI toward a useful, reliable, and well-structured response.
Positions the AI as an academic integrity case reviewer.
Defines assessment context, policy, evidence, student response, procedural history, and reviewer authority.
Requires a neutral evidence, policy, and procedure review.
Prevents unsupported guilt findings, invented policy, intent assumptions, privacy breaches, and decisions beyond authority.
Requires chronology, policy mapping, evidence, response, procedure, questions, options, and next steps.
Course context, policy, evidence, student response, procedural history, authority, and output format.
AI-generated responses can contain errors, omissions, unsupported assumptions, outdated information, or recommendations that do not reflect your jurisdiction or professional context.
Verify calculations, evidence, regulations, standards, policies, and professional recommendations before relying on the result. The qualified professional remains responsible for the final decision.
Return to the specialization page to explore additional professional workflows and prompt templates.
Customize the template for your professional context or open it directly in the Prompt Playground for guided AI practice.