Published

27-10-2026

Type of Work

Other

SubStack Blog post

Abstract

Students in higher education are often uncertain about which uses of generative AI are acceptable, and that uncertainty causes stress and inadvertent breaches. Permission scales describe intended use but are hard to enforce in unsupervised work: compliance rests on honest disclosure, and enforcement rests on detection, which is unreliable. This paper proposes a structural alternative organised around one question: was AI present when the assessed work was produced? Presence is defined by opportunity, which design controls. The answer places each assessed component in one of four conditions. Prep is developmental and assessed for feedback. Closed judges unaided capability. Account judges a live defence of work prepared however the student chose, including work where an artefact must meet a standard or is graded and ratified in the conversation. Live Use judges how students direct and check AI as they use it. In Prep and Account, preparation becomes a choice about how to learn, including the choice to work without AI. Examples are drawn from human sciences, business, creative arts and information technology. The conditions build on the SRCIT framework and work within any programme that separates developmental from secure assessment.

References

Bassett, M. A., Bradshaw, W., Bornsztejn, H., Hogg, A., Murdoch, K., Pearce, B., & Webber, C. (2026). Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2026.2622146

Bridgeman, A., Weeks, R., & Liu, D. Y. T. (2024, September 12). Program level assessment design and the two-lane approach. Teaching@Sydney. https://educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au/teaching@sydney/program-level-assessment-two-lane/

Corbin, T., Dawson, P., & Liu, D. (2025). Talk is cheap: Why structural assessment changes are needed for a time of GenAI. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2503964

Curtis, G. J. (2025). The two-lane road to hell is paved with good intentions: Why an all-or-none approach to generative AI, integrity, and assessment is insupportable. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2476516

Dawson, P. (2020). Cognitive offloading and assessment. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41956-1_4

Dawson, P., Bearman, M., Dollinger, M., & Boud, D. (2024). Validity matters more than cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(7), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2386662

Fawns, T., Henderson, M., Matthews, K., Oberg, G., Liang, Y., Walton, J., Corbin, T., Bearman, M., Buckingham Shum, S., McCluskey, T., McLean, J., Shibani, A., Bakharia, A., Lim, L.-A., Pepperell, N., Slade, C., Chung, J., & Seligmann, A. (2024). Gen AI and student perspectives of use and ambiguity: A multi-institutional study. ASCILITE Publications, 132–134. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2024.1218

Lodge, J. M., & Loble, L. (2026). Artificial intelligence, cognitive offloading and implications for education [Report]. University of Technology Sydney. https://doi.org/10.71741/4PYXMBNJAQ.31302475

Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(6). https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36

Perkins, M., Roe, J., & Furze, L. (2025). Reimagining the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale: A refined framework for educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(7). https://doi.org/10.53761/rrm4y757

Prentice, S., Benson, J., Kirkpatrick, E., & Schuwirth, L. (2020). Workplace-based assessments in postgraduate medical education: A hermeneutic review. Medical Education, 54(11), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14221

Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768

Walton, J., Bearman, M., Crawford, N., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2025). How university students work on assessment tasks with generative artificial intelligence: Matters of judgement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2570328

Webber, C. (2026a, March 17). Reconstructing constructive alignment: The CSR framework [Blog post]. Substack. https://substack.com/home/post/p-191205793

Webber, C. (2026b, March 17). Building the circuit: The SRCIT framework [Blog post]. Substack. https://colinwebber.substack.com/p/building-the-circuit-the-srcit-framework

Webber, C. (2026c, March 17). Closing the circuit: Where CSR × SRCIT integration actually works [Blog post]. Substack. https://colinwebber.substack.com/p/closing-the-circuit-where-csr-srcit

Notes

Published to Substack and promoted via linkedin.   https://colinwebber.substack.com/p/open-the-process-secure-the-judgement

Citation

Webber, C. (2026, October 27). Open the process, secure the judgement. Colin's Substack [Blog Post]. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XJPE4

Download

Share

COinS