East Carolina University.

Detection status: Turnitin runs in Canvas, but ECU's own Turnitin service page and FAQ describe similarity checking and the ETS e-rater grammar tool only and name no AI-writing indicator; ECU's AI site asks faculty to weigh "mistrust and surveillance" before using AI detection technologies while leaving the choice to them; Respondus LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor are deployed for exam proctoring and are not described by ECU as AI detection
Office in these sources: Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (OSRR) · 364 Wright Building, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858 · 252-328-6824 · osrr@ecu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: ECU publishes an Office of University Ombuds, but it states that it does not serve this page's reader: "The Ombuds office serves Staff (SHRA, CSS, DMSS, EPA), Faculty, and Administrators. Students are served by OSRR and offices under the Dean of Students." A separate Brody Office of the Ombuds is published by the School of Medicine for its own students. No ombuds or advocacy office serving students generally and independent of OSRR was located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Aug 29, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

East Carolina University's published sources on AI and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. The governing document is REG02.07.11, the University Regulation on Academic Integrity (updated August 13, 2024), whose accompanying Appendix A carries the procedures; where the Regulation, Appendix A and the ECU Faculty Manual differ, the Regulation states that it and Appendix A control. The Student Code of Conduct, REG11.30.01, governs non-academic conduct and is a separate route. Detection is documented not in any of those but in ECU's IT service catalogue and on the university's AI site, and the two do not say the same thing; both are quoted below. Individual faculty set their own course rules — ECU's library guide states that "under the concept of academic freedom, faculty have the ability to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may be used in the classroom" — so a syllabus may add rules the central documents do not. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case; confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What is documented — and what isn't

ECU licenses Turnitin and runs it inside Canvas. The IT service catalogue entry describes the toolset, and what it names is the point (ITCS service page, no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Turnitin Plagiarism Review is a set of tools designed to promote academic integrity while improving student writing through targeted feedback. The toolset includes plagiarism detection, automated spelling and grammar, grading rubrics, and feedback tools. Turnitin is integrated with Canvas." "Turnitin uses the world's largest database of archived internet sources, journal articles, and student composed essays to identify similarities. There are filters to exclude specific sections, quotations or bibliographies according to the instructor's preference." "The plagiarism detection tool does not test for original ideas or authenticate a student's writing style to protect it from outsourcing. Although the plagiarism database is extensive, a low similarity score does not guarantee that the student's submission is their authentic work."

The only other automated component the page names is a grammar tool, not a detector: "The ETS e-rater tool automatic checks spelling and grammar and provides filters to sort errors by category." Source: Turnitin Plagiarism Review — ECU Service Catalog. Scope, as ECU states it: the service is listed under "Canvas & Integrated Tools" and available to "Faculty, Students"; whether it runs on a given assignment is an instructor setting, since the page describes options chosen "during the assignment setup."

ECU's companion knowledge-base article is the closest thing on the university's own pages to a statement about evidentiary weight, and it is about the similarity score rather than any AI score (article published Oct 3, 2019, modified Mar 18, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). Asked "What similarity score should I consider to be plagiarism?", ECU answers:

"The similarity score is to be used with professional judgment. Depending on the type of assignment, its length, and the chosen setting, the similarity score can vary extensively."

The only other question in the article concerns letting students run the ETS e-rater on their own work before submitting. Source: FAQ — Turnitin Plagiarism Review, ECU Knowledge Base. Neither the service page nor the FAQ names Turnitin's AI writing indicator, an AI writing report, or an AI percentage, in either direction — neither as available nor as switched off. That silence is the finding, and it is stated here at exactly that width.

Where ECU does address AI detection tools, it addresses them as a choice, not as a deployment

The university's AI site carries a recommended-syllabus-language page maintained with the Faculty Senate's Distance Education and Learning Technology Committee and the Office of Digital Learning and Emerging Technology Initiatives. Under the heading "Important Note on AI Detection Tools" it states in full (page modified May 11, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Consider the implications of mistrust and surveillance when considering using AI detection technologies. Focusing on pedagogical approaches and learning about AI technologies contributes to a supportive student learning environment."

Read as written, that is a caution addressed to a faculty member who is deciding — it names no tool, does not say ECU provides one, and does not say ECU forbids one. Source: Section Specific Language & Policies — Artificial Intelligence at ECU. The same page publishes three model course policies on student AI use, from "Use with Acknowledgement" through "Use Only with Prior Permission" to "Use Prohibited," which is what the choice-of-rules caveat in the lede refers to.

Nothing else on ECU's AI site addresses detection. Its central guidance page, "Using Generative AI at ECU: What You Need to Know" (modified Jul 10, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026), is about approved tools and data classification: Microsoft Copilot is named as "ECU's primary approved generative AI tool for Level 2 protected institutional data," and the page states that "all AI tools must be acquired through ECU's Technology Purchase Process" and that "this process applies even for free AI tools." Source: Using Generative AI at ECU — Artificial Intelligence at ECU. No AI-detection product appears on that page or in the approval material linked from it.

Proctoring, kept separate

ECU deploys two Respondus products in Canvas, and describes neither as analysing text for AI authorship. Of Respondus Monitor the service catalogue says (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026): "Respondus Monitor is a software-based video proctoring service that can be used when students take a test in Canvas. Respondus Monitor tracks and records suspicious behavior such as using a secondary device, calculator, textbook or receiving assistance from other students. Respondus Monitor creates a flagged and time-stamped video for the instructor to review." Source: Respondus Monitor — ECU Service Catalog; the companion Respondus LockDown Browser entry describes "a custom browser that locks the testing environment for students." Scope: exam sessions in Canvas, at the instructor's election. ECU's own description uses no AI language for either tool, and neither is presented here as an AI-writing detector.

Where AI does appear in ECU's binding rules

The Regulation on Academic Integrity names AI in its definition of cheating, which is the provision an accusation would be brought under (REG02.07.11, updated August 13, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). Its cheating examples include "unapproved use of artificial intelligence to generate assigned written material," and its plagiarism examples include "submitting a paper written by another person, service, or online tool as one's own work." Source: REG02.07.11 University Regulation on Academic Integrity, §2.1.1 and §2.1.2. The Regulation names no detector, no software and no evidentiary treatment of a detector score; on what may be weighed it says only that a finding "must be based on the evidence presented, which may include, but is not limited to, pertinent records (e.g., assignment, syllabi), exhibits (e.g., photographs, audio/video information, social media information), and written/oral statements."

Detection sweep, so a later reader can tell a thorough negative from an unasked question. Searched on ecu.edu and on ECU's TeamDynamix service portal: Turnitin, including its SimCheck and Originality product names and its AI writing indicator; Copyleaks; iThenticate; GPTZero; Originality.ai; Winston AI; Crossplag; ZeroGPT; Packback; Grammarly Authorship; Honorlock; Proctorio; Respondus; and Examity. Also searched by category: the Canvas & Integrated Tools service catalogue in full; the ITCS knowledge base; ECU's AI site (Teach, Learn, Work, Research, Resources and the central generative-AI guidance page); the ECU Libraries research guide on generative AI; the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities pages; and the University Policy Manual. Documented in institutional use on ECU's own pages: Turnitin similarity checking with the ETS e-rater grammar tool, Respondus LockDown Browser, and Respondus Monitor. Came back empty across every one of those searches: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio and Examity; any ECU page describing Turnitin's AI writing indicator as enabled, disabled, provided or withdrawn; any separate graduate, thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline; and any ECU page naming an AI-detection product as licensed, approved or purchased.

02Published procedure

What the university's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: At the instructor meeting, where most academic-integrity cases begin and end: "The instructor and student both may have a nonparticipating observer at the Instructor Meeting. The instructor and student may select an individual of choice, who is not involved in the suspected AIV, as their nonparticipating observer." The same section states the limit: "The observer(s) may attend the meeting and take notes for reference, but may not actively participate or present information, verbally or in writing. The meeting is closed to the public and no individuals except those described above may attend unless the student or instructor have received an ADA accommodation through the University or arranged and received permission for an individual to provide language translation to either party." A separate and narrower right attaches later: the Regulation gives the student "the right to be assisted in preparing their written appeal by a non-attorney advocate or a licensed attorney, at the student's expense" — assistance in preparing the appeal, which is not the same as accompaniment at a hearing. On recording, ECU's own answer is unambiguous: "All conduct board hearings are recorded. The recording will serve as the verbatim record of the proceedings … The University retains the sole right to record the hearing. No other recordings may be made of the hearing." — Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures, §3.3.1 (no date on the document's face; retrieved Aug 27, 2026); REG02.07.11 §3.1.9 (updated August 13, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026); OSRR Attorney & Non-Attorney Advocate FAQs (page modified Dec 20, 2022; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · Appendix A (PDF) · REG02.07.11 · OSRR Attorney & Non-Attorney Advocate FAQs
What follows on the record: The mark attaches to the grade, not to the transcript generally: "If the penalty assigned is a failure of the course, OSRR will inform the registrar to record a final grade of 'XF' on the student's transcript. The 'X' indicates the matter is related to a responsible finding of an AIV." Removal is possible and conditioned: "The 'X' designation must remain on the student's transcript for at least one calendar year and will be removed from the official transcript after one calendar year only if the student has completed the 'XF' removal requirements through OSRR and obtained the approval of the Director of the OSRR. … Courses in which a student receives a grade of 'XF' are not eligible for grade replacement even if the 'X' is removed from the official transcript. All courses for which a student receives an 'XF' will be factored into the student's GPA, even if the 'X' is removed from the official transcript and the course is retaken." Above that level the Regulation states: "Academic Conduct suspensions will be marked on the student's transcript for the duration of the suspension. Expulsions will be permanently marked on the student's transcript," and, on disclosure beyond ECU: "Information about students who are suspended, expelled, or have serious pending cases is entered into a UNC database, where it is stored permanently. All UNC constituent institutions have access to this information." No provision on disclosure to employers or licensing boards was located; on other disclosure the Regulation states only that identifying information "will not be released without the written and dated consent of the student identified in the record, unless allowed by state or Federal law." — REG02.07.11 §7.1.4, §10.3 and §10.4 (updated August 13, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · REG02.07.11 · Removal of X From Transcript — OSRR

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

The case begins with the instructor, not with the office. Appendix A sets the notice requirement and its contents (no date on the document's face; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"To begin the review of a suspected AIV, the instructor must initiate a meeting with the student via written notice. Written notice must be sent to the student within ten (10) calendar days of the time the instructor becomes aware of the alleged AIV." "Written notice must include at minimum: Specific allegations related to the alleged AIV; A brief description of the material evidence supporting the allegation; A time and place for a meeting to review the AIV concerns or steps for the student to take to schedule a meeting with the instructor to discuss the alleged AIV; A list of the possible instructor-imposed sanctions/penalties … Appropriate contact information for the Instructor; A copy of the student's rights and responsibilities as defined by the Regulation." "Upon delivery of the written notification from the instructor, the student has ten (10) calendar days to contact the instructor to confirm the day and time for the meeting with the instructor."

Source: Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures (PDF), §3.2. Appendix A also states what happens if the student does not reply: "If the student fails to respond to the notice, the instructor may determine responsibility regarding the allegation and may impose an appropriate academic penalty when the information available demonstrates that the student is responsible for the suspected AIV by the preponderance of evidence." The outcome "shall be communicated to the student in writing within ten (10) calendar days of the Meeting."

The standard of proof and the student's stated rights are both in the Regulation (updated August 13, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"For a student to be found responsible for an AIV, the evidence must establish that the student is responsible for an AIV by a preponderance of the evidence — that it is more likely than not that the student committed the AIV as alleged." "The right to reasonable access to all relevant information gathered throughout the investigation pertinent to the alleged violation." "The right to respond to information presented against the student. This may include presenting information relevant to the alleged violation, including inviting witnesses." "The right to be presumed not responsible until proven responsible, and to plead not responsible without fear that the plea itself (as distinct from any related lies or misrepresentations) may give rise to a charge of lying should the student be found guilty of committing an AIV."

Source: REG02.07.11, §4.2 and §3.1. The Regulation also states that a student "may not withdraw from a course while a suspected AIV is being investigated," and lists the penalties an instructor may assign: an educational resolution with no grade effect, a penalty on the assignment, a course-grade reduction short of failure, or the "XF" described in the docket above. Sanctions beyond academic penalties — probation, deferred suspension, suspension, expulsion — are not the instructor's to impose; those go to an Academic Integrity Board, and where suspension or expulsion is recommended the Provost or the Provost's designee "will make the final administrative determination."

On appeal, the Regulation states the grounds and the window (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"In all other cases, the student has the burden of showing either (1) a violation of due process or (2) the decision made was arbitrary or capricious." "To appeal, the student must specify in writing which grounds form the basis for the student's appeal. The appeal letter must be dated, signed by the student, and received by OSRR within ten (10) calendar days from the date that the written decision on the outcome and sanctions is provided to the student. … Appeals will be limited to the record of the hearing, including the supporting documents provided by the student and available records ('written record') within OSRR and the student's written appeal."

Source: REG02.07.11, §9.2 and §9.3. OSRR screens the appeal before any board sees it: "If an appeal hearing is granted, it will be referred to the AIAB. If OSRR denies the appeal, the decision of the instructor and any assigned sanctions are effective immediately, and the student will have no further appeal opportunities." Decisions of the Academic Integrity Appeal Board "are final." Where suspension or expulsion is upheld by the Provost, the Regulation states a further route to the ECU Board of Trustees, whose decision "is final."

Two further first-party points a reader is unlikely to find alone. OSRR states that a complaint places a hold on the student record: "A hold is placed on a student's record by OSRR at the time a complaint is filed. The hold will remain on the record until the student meets with a conduct administrator & the complaint is resolved." And the "Student Advisor" OSRR describes in the same FAQ is scoped away from this page's subject and is not independent — it is "a trained student-member of the Conduct Board who can assist you as you go through the appeals process for a non-academic violation of the Student Code of Conduct." Source: Student FAQs — OSRR (page modified Oct 17, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
University Regulation on Academic Integrity (REG02.07.11) — AI named in the cheating definition, student rights, preponderance standard, sanctions, XF, appeals, records and transcript notation	policy.ecu.edu/020711 (states "Updated: August 13, 2024"; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Appendix A: Academic Integrity Process and Procedures — notice requirements, the instructor meeting, the nonparticipating observer, board referral	policy.ecu.edu — Appendix A (PDF) (no date on the document's face; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Student Code of Conduct (REG11.30.01) — the separate non-academic conduct route	policy.ecu.edu/113001 (retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Turnitin Plagiarism Review — ECU's own description of what the toolset includes: similarity checking and the ETS e-rater; no AI-writing indicator named	ecu.teamdynamix.com — Turnitin Plagiarism Review (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
FAQ — Turnitin Plagiarism Review — "the similarity score is to be used with professional judgment"	ecu.teamdynamix.com — FAQ, Turnitin Plagiarism Review (published Oct 3, 2019, modified Mar 18, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Respondus Monitor — video proctoring in Canvas, not described by ECU as AI detection	ecu.teamdynamix.com — Respondus Monitor (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Respondus LockDown Browser — locked testing environment in Canvas	ecu.teamdynamix.com — Respondus LockDown Browser (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Section Specific Language & Policies — the three model course AI policies and the "Important Note on AI Detection Tools"	ai.ecu.edu/teach/section-language-policies (page modified May 11, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Using Generative AI at ECU — approved tools, data classification, technology purchase process	ai.ecu.edu/using-generative-ai-at-ecu (page modified Jul 10, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
ECU Libraries research guide, Generative AI in the Classroom & Research — the academic-freedom framing of course AI rules	libguides.ecu.edu/generative-AI (last updated Jul 22, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
OSRR Attorney & Non-Attorney Advocate FAQs — preponderance standard, recording of hearings	osrr.ecu.edu/faqs/attorney-non-attorney-advocate-faqs (page modified Dec 20, 2022; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
OSRR Student FAQs — the record hold, and the scope of the Student Advisor	osrr.ecu.edu/faqs/student-faqs (page modified Oct 17, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Record retention and transcript notation — the XF mark and the petition to remove the "X"	osrr.ecu.edu/removex (page modified May 7, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) and REG02.07.11 §7.1.4, §10.3, §10.4
Ombuds or student-advocacy office	Office of University Ombuds, which states it "serves Staff (SHRA, CSS, DMSS, EPA), Faculty, and Administrators" and that "students are served by OSRR and offices under the Dean of Students": ombuds.ecu.edu (page modified Sep 23, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). A separate Brody Office of the Ombuds is published by the School of Medicine for its own students. Searched ecu.edu for "ombuds", "ombudsperson", "student advocacy" and "dean of students advocacy"; no office serving students generally and independent of OSRR was located (searched Aug 27, 2026)
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities — office contact	364 Wright Building, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858 · 252-328-6824 · osrr@ecu.edu · hours Monday–Friday 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., closed 12:00–1:00 p.m. (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026): osrr.ecu.edu/contact-us (page modified Aug 4, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-08-27 — Page created. Every quotation on this page was captured first-party this date from the ecu.edu, policy.ecu.edu, ai.ecu.edu, osrr.ecu.edu, ombuds.ecu.edu, libguides.ecu.edu and ecu.teamdynamix.com addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. REG02.07.11 was read end to end and its own section numbering is what this page cites, as is Appendix A's. Source page dates as displayed: REG02.07.11 states "Updated: August 13, 2024"; the Turnitin FAQ knowledge-base article carries a published date of Oct 3, 2019 and a modified date of Mar 18, 2026; the AI-site syllabus-language page May 11, 2026; the central generative-AI guidance page Jul 10, 2026; the OSRR contact page Aug 4, 2026; the OSRR student FAQ Oct 17, 2024; the OSRR attorney FAQ Dec 20, 2022; the X-removal page May 7, 2025; the ombuds page Sep 23, 2024; the library guide Jul 22, 2026. Appendix A and the three TeamDynamix service-catalogue entries display no date of their own, which is stated beside each rather than glossed. Slug "ecu" is the Greenville institution; East Carolina is the only ECU in this collection.

2026-08-27 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep on ecu.edu and the ECU TeamDynamix portal: Turnitin including SimCheck, Originality and the AI writing indicator; Copyleaks; iThenticate; GPTZero; Originality.ai; Winston AI; Crossplag; ZeroGPT; Packback; Grammarly Authorship; Honorlock; Proctorio; Respondus; Examity. Category sweep: the Canvas & Integrated Tools service catalogue read in full (ten services listed), the ITCS knowledge base, ECU's AI site across Teach, Learn, Work, Research, Resources and the central generative-AI guidance page, the ECU Libraries generative-AI research guide, the OSRR pages, and the University Policy Manual. Documented in institutional use: Turnitin similarity checking with the ETS e-rater grammar tool, Respondus LockDown Browser, Respondus Monitor. Came back empty: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Examity; any ECU page describing Turnitin's AI writing indicator in any state; any separate graduate, thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline; any AI-detection product on ECU's approved-software or procurement pages.

2026-08-27 — Step-2 disqualification check, run on the completed inventory: pass, and the reasoning is recorded because the call was close. A third-party claim, traced by an earlier scan to student-press and tracker sources, holds that ECU disabled Turnitin's AI detection in 2023. It was not confirmed and not refuted first-party: no ECU-published page located in this review states that the AI writing indicator was ever enabled, disabled, provided or withdrawn. The page therefore states neither, and quotes what ECU does publish — a Turnitin service description naming similarity checking and the ETS e-rater and no AI indicator, and an FAQ whose only weight guidance concerns the similarity score. The nearest first-party statement about detection is the AI site's note asking faculty to "consider the implications of mistrust and surveillance when considering using AI detection technologies," which is a caution addressed to a faculty member choosing, not a campus-wide disabling and not a statement that detector output may not be relied on. The inventory is not empty (Turnitin similarity and two Respondus proctoring tools are deployed), and no located ECU document recommends against detection across the board, so the exclusion test in the method is not met.

2026-08-27 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) OMBUDS TRAP, both variants present at once: ECU's Office of University Ombuds states on its own page that it serves staff, faculty and administrators and that students are served by OSRR — the office handling the matter — and the Brody Office of the Ombuds is a single school's. The docket row says so rather than listing either as available. (2) The OSRR "Student Advisor" is scoped away twice over: it assists with the appeals process for a non-academic Code violation, and the advisor is a member of the Conduct Board, so it is neither this page's subject nor independent. Recorded in the prose rather than promoted to the ombuds row. (3) SCOPE LINE on accompaniment: the nonparticipating-observer right in Appendix A attaches to the instructor meeting; the non-attorney advocate or licensed attorney in REG02.07.11 §3.1.9 is for preparing the written appeal, at the student's expense. The row states both and does not merge them. (4) No provision on disclosure of a finding to employers or licensing boards was located; the UNC-system database provision, which is permanent and shared across constituent institutions, is what ECU publishes instead and is quoted at that scope. (5) Detector evidentiary weight in adjudication: nothing located. REG02.07.11 §4.2 lists what evidence may be considered and names no software.

2026-08-27 — Deliberate omissions. The third-party 2023 AI-detection-disabling claim is not quoted, cited or linked anywhere on this page; it was not found on any ECU page and student-press and tracker assertions are not first-party evidence of an institution's configuration. Turnitin's and Respondus's own vendor documentation, linked from ECU's service pages, is third-party and is not reproduced. The ECU Faculty Manual Part VI copy of the integrity procedures is not quoted, because REG02.07.11 §1.1.3 states that the Regulation and Appendix A control where they differ from it. The library guide's ChatGPT-authored sections are not quoted. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-29 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; an automated source re-verification, not a human editorial review. All sixteen first-party sources linked here were fetched again and compared against the page: REG02.07.11 (on-face Updated August 13, 2024) and its Appendix A PDF, the Student Code, the Turnitin service article and FAQ (FAQ modified Mar 18 2026) and the two Respondus articles, the AI-site section-language-policies (modified May 11 2026) and using-generative-ai (modified Jul 10 2026) pages, the library GenAI guide (Jul 22 2026), the OSRR attorney/non-attorney and student FAQ pages, the removeX and contact pages (contact modified Aug 4 2026), and the University and Brody ombuds pages. All quotations still verbatim and all stated dates intact. Detection sweep re-run: no net-new detector and no status change — ECU's Turnitin service page still names similarity checking and the ETS e-rater grammar tool only with no AI-writing indicator, the AI site still frames detection as a faculty choice with its mistrust-and-surveillance caution, and the two Respondus tools remain proctoring only. OSRR contact and both ombuds offices confirmed unchanged, including the University Ombuds scope that excludes students. Internet Archive captures were requested this date but the Save Page Now endpoint was unavailable from this environment; captures remain to be added. Automated research pass.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.