Georgia Southern University.

Detection status: Turnitin runs inside Folio at instructor discretion, documented by the university as OriginalityCheck similarity only — no Georgia Southern page located in this review names a Turnitin AI writing indicator; iThenticate is scoped to faculty researchers and graduate thesis and dissertation committees, with student accounts unavailable; Respondus LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor are available through Folio; the university's 2025 AI policy leaves the use of "language detection tools, proctoring tools, process analytic tools" to each course's own syllabus statement
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct · Statesboro Campus, Russell Union 2022 · 912-478-0059 · studentconduct@georgiasouthern.edu — Armstrong & Liberty Campuses, Student Union D206 · 912-344-3300 · armstudentconduct@georgiasouthern.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None 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.

Georgia Southern University's published sources on AI and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. Three documents do most of the work. The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts policy, issued September 26, 2025 and carrying a revision date of July 8, 2026, sets the university-wide frame and then hands the operative decisions to each course's syllabus statement. The Academic Dishonesty Policy sets the reporting window, the informal and formal resolution routes, the sanction range and the appeal grounds. The Office of Student Conduct's own pages publish a list of due-process rights alongside them. Georgia Southern is part of the University System of Georgia, and its AI policy names Board of Regents Policy 6.28 as a source; nothing on this page is a system-level statement presented as Georgia Southern's own, and nothing here is drawn from any other Georgia institution. Course syllabi may add rules of their own, and the AI policy expressly requires them to. 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

Georgia Southern publishes two Turnitin pages of its own, one from the Faculty Center and one from Information Technology Services. Both describe the same deployment, and both list exactly one feature. The Faculty Center page (page's own modified date Jun 25, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Turnitin is a service that helps educators prevent plagiarism by detecting unoriginal content in student papers. In addition to acting as a plagiarism deterrent, it also has features designed to aid in educating students about plagiarism and the importance of proper attribution of any borrowed content." "Features OriginalityCheck ® Ensures original work by checking submitted papers against 20+ billion web pages, 220+ million student papers, and leading library databases and publications." "Georgia Southern University instructors may utilize a plagiarism prevention technology in some of their course sections. Students may have the option of submitting papers online through a plagiarism prevention service or by allowing the instructor to submit hard copies of their papers. The papers may be retained by the service for the sole purpose of checking for plagiarized content in future student submissions."

Source: Turnitin — Faculty Center. Scope, as the university states it: the tool is enabled per assignment rather than run across the institution — "An instructor creates a Turnitin assignment folder inside of a Folio course," and "When you use Folio, Turnitin can be enabled within individual Assignments Folders through the Evaluation & Feedback menu." Folio is Georgia Southern's name for its D2L Brightspace learning-management system. Who sees the output: "Turnitin creates an Originality Report that can be viewed by instructors and students, which identifies where the text within a student submission has matched another source," and the student-facing section adds that the similarity report is available to the student "if the instructor has made it visible."

The IT Services page carries the same feature list and the same disclaimer word for word, at a later revision (page's own modified date Feb 9, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). Source: Turnitin — IT Services.

The absence is worth stating precisely, because it is the finding a reader arriving from a Turnitin-related accusation most needs. On neither Georgia Southern Turnitin page, in either revision, is a Turnitin AI writing indicator, AI Writing Detection report, or AI score named, described, or given a threshold. Both pages state OriginalityCheck as the sole listed feature, and both frame the output as a similarity match against existing sources. Searched for such a statement across: the Faculty Center Turnitin and Digital Learning Tools pages, the IT Services Learning Technology Support and Instructional Tools catalogue, the Office of Student Conduct's pages, the Office of the Provost's faculty resources, and the university's AI policy itself. No first-party Georgia Southern statement enabling, disabling, or setting an evidentiary threshold for a Turnitin AI writing indicator was located in this review. This page therefore does not state that Georgia Southern runs one, and does not state that it has switched one off; what can be said is what its own pages say, which is that they document similarity checking.

What the 2025 AI policy says about detection

The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts policy is the university's own document, filed in its policy repository under Academic Affairs Policies with an issue date of September 26, 2025 and, on the face of the PDF, "Revised: July 8, 2026" (retrieved Aug 27, 2026). It does not name a campus detector. It places the decision at course level, and it requires the syllabus to disclose it:

"Within the framework established by the USG Academic Freedom Policy, University faculty have academic freedom to conduct the instruction of their courses and to design their assessments to support their pedagogical goals. Therefore, faculty are free to use, not use, or otherwise structure the use of AI within their courses as they see fit. Faculty expectations should be communicated in clear, consistent language in an enforceable syllabus statement." "When assembling their course syllabus, each faculty member must create an AI syllabus statement that: […] Establishes any requirements for using process tracking software and communicates the possible use of tools to address unethical usage of AI, including language detection tools, proctoring tools, process analytic tools, and other appropriate approaches." "Only University-approved AI tools may be used for assessing student work. Faculty should inform students of their use of AI for this purpose."

Source: Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts — Academic Affairs Policies 51, §VI.B. Provenance, kept distinct: the same policy's definitions section names vendor products, but as illustrations of a category rather than as a statement of what the university runs — "Process Tracking Software: Software such as Turnitin Clarity, Grammarly Authorship, Visible AI, Codio, CodeGrade, etc., used to provide students and faculty with a platform to demonstrate the process of developing papers, writing code, and other assessment activities." No Georgia Southern page located in this review documents any of those five as licensed or deployed by the university, and none is presented here as one. The policy separately provides that the Chief Information Officer maintains an inventory of approved AI tools published "through Artificial Intelligence Resources"; that inventory itself was not located as a public page in this review, so no tool is attributed to it here.

The policy also states what conduct it treats as a violation, which is the provision an accused student is most likely to be reading against: "Students are accountable for their use of AI as detailed in the University's Academic Dishonesty Policy and Code of Student Conduct. Any use of AI to generate content that is submitted as one's work without faculty permission and/or proper attribution is considered plagiarism. Use of agentive AI to complete assessments without human interaction is considered cheating." And it names where questions go: "The Dean of Students is the point of contact for all questions related to student academic integrity," while "The Office of Student Conduct will serve as the point of contact for all questions related to the Academic Dishonesty policy and use of AI."

One student-facing requirement attaches to the same policy. Georgia Southern's University College publishes that "AI Fundamentals is a required, non-credit course for all incoming Georgia Southern students starting Spring 2026," that it "must be finished before beginning coursework," and that it "is part of the university's Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts policy, launched in September 2025." The same page states the division of labour this page's lede describes: "Faculty remain responsible for setting course-level AI policies within the framework of the university's Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts policy." Source: AI Fundamentals — University College (page's own modified date Aug 3, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026).

A second text-matching pipeline, scoped away from students

The Office of Research Integrity documents iThenticate, and states its scope in its own words (page's own modified date Oct 22, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"iThenticate is a software service that allows faculty researchers and faculty advisors for graduate thesis and dissertation committees to screen their work for originality and copyright compliance against published works as well as online sources. Unlike the 'turnitin' tool available for student works, iThenticate does not record your pre-publication submissions to protect your intellectual property and allow you to manage your findings. iThenticate is used by federal funding agencies and many publishers to check for potential plagiarism in submissions. (Student accounts are not available.)"

Source: iThenticate — Research Integrity. Scope, stated rather than implied: this is the graduate thesis and dissertation pipeline, run by and for faculty and committee advisors, and the university states plainly that students do not have accounts. It is a similarity tool; the page describes no AI-writing output. It is recorded here because a graduate student whose chapter was screened deserves to find the tool named, not because it is the undergraduate reader's tool.

The proctoring stack

Information Technology Services documents Respondus LockDown Browser as a browser lockdown rather than a content analyser — "a custom browser that locks down the testing environment in Folio. When students use the LockDown Browser to access a quiz, they are unable to print, copy, visit other websites, access other applications, or close a quiz until it is submitted for grading." The same page states the student-side availability of the webcam product: "Students have access to Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor through Folio," and "Quizzes requiring LockDown Browser or Monitor will be indicated within the title of the quiz." Source: Respondus LockDown Browser — IT Services (page's own modified date Feb 9, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). Provenance, kept distinct: Georgia Southern's page does not characterize Respondus Monitor as AI-driven and states no threshold or evidentiary weight for its output; the descriptions of Monitor's own features on that page are links to the vendor's site. Neither product is presented here as producing an AI-writing score on submitted text. A separate IT Services page for Respondus 4.0 concerns exam authoring and states on its face "This is NOT LOCKDOWN BROWSER."

Detection sweep, so a later reader can tell a thorough negative from an unasked question. Searched on georgiasouthern.edu, ww2.georgiasouthern.edu, students.georgiasouthern.edu and the university's own policy repository at digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu: Turnitin, including its SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names; Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship; and the proctoring vendors Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity. Category sweep: the Folio (D2L Brightspace) instructional-tool catalogue published by Learning Technology Support; the Faculty Center's Digital Learning Tools listing; the IT Services supported-software pages; the Office of Research Integrity's graduate thesis and dissertation screening pipeline; the Office of Student Conduct's own pages; and the Office of the Provost's AI policy and faculty resources. Documented in institutional use on Georgia Southern's own pages: Turnitin similarity via Folio, instructor-enabled per assignment; iThenticate for faculty researchers and graduate thesis and dissertation committees, students excluded; Respondus LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor via Folio. Named on a Georgia Southern page at a weaker provenance and not upgraded here: Turnitin Clarity, Grammarly Authorship, Visible AI, Codio and CodeGrade, which appear only inside a definition of "Process Tracking Software" in the AI policy, and which no located page states the university licenses. Came back empty on Georgia Southern's own pages in this review: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Honorlock, Proctorio and Examity, and any first-party statement naming a Turnitin AI writing indicator.

02Published procedure

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

Who may be present: At the faculty meeting that opens an informal resolution, the Academic Dishonesty Policy states: "A third-party observer may be present at the request of the Faculty Member or respondent." At a formal hearing before the University Student Conduct Board, the same policy states, in both the minor-violation and major-violation procedures: "The Respondent is entitled to an Advisor who may advise them and assist in drafting questions." The Office of Student Conduct's own published list of due-process rights states the companion right more broadly: a student accused of a violation has the right "To be accompanied at a hearing by an advisor of their choice and up to two family members." On recording, nothing was located: neither the Academic Dishonesty Policy nor the Office of Student Conduct's pages state whether a meeting or hearing may be recorded, by whom, or whether a student may obtain a copy — the office's appeal procedure refers to reviewing "hearing transcripts" among the case material without stating how they are produced or whether a student may make a recording of their own. Searched the Academic Dishonesty Policy in full, the Office of Student Conduct's pages including its due-process rights, appeals and FAQ sections, and the Code of Student Conduct's published summary. — Academic Dishonesty Policy, §VI.B.1.a.v, §VI.C.5 and §VI.D.11 (policy states "Issued: September 20, 2021"; retrieved Aug 27, 2026); Office of Student Conduct, "Due Process Rights" (page's own modified date Aug 25, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF) · Student Conduct — Division of Student Affairs
What follows on the record: Not stated in the sources reviewed, on the question a reader most often asks. No Georgia Southern document located in this review states whether an academic-dishonesty finding is noted on the transcript, how long a finding is retained, or whether it is disclosed to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards. What the sources do state is where the file goes and one external reporting consequence. Of an informal resolution, the Academic Dishonesty Policy states: "The original form, along with all relevant documentation, will be submitted to the Office of the Provost and will become part of the Respondent's permanent file." Of disciplinary suspension, the same policy states: "The Student may also be added to the University System of Georgia's Student Disciplinary Actions Reporting System." Of expulsion: "Expulsion is a permanent separation from the University." The Office of Student Conduct separately publishes, among a student's due-process rights, "The right to request a copy of your individual Student Conduct Record." Searched the Academic Dishonesty Policy in full, the Office of Student Conduct's pages, and the Registrar's student pages for a transcript-notation or records-retention provision; none was located. — Academic Dishonesty Policy, §VI.B.1.a.ix and §VI.E.3 (policy states "Issued: September 20, 2021"; retrieved Aug 27, 2026); Office of Student Conduct, "Due Process Rights" (page's own modified date Aug 25, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF) · Student Conduct — Division of Student Affairs

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

The reporting window and the two routes a case can take are both in the Academic Dishonesty Policy (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Reports must be submitted to the Office of the Provost or the Faculty Member of the class where the alleged violation occurred within two (2) weeks of return to the student of the grade for the assignment in question. Exceptions to this time limitation will be made only in cases where new information arises which was not known or reasonably could have been known within the two (2) week period described." "The Respondent has five (5) Days to decide whether or not to accept the Informal Resolution." "A Respondent is eligible for an Informal Resolution only if they have no previous findings of responsibility for the violations listed in this chapter." "The Faculty Member will provide the Respondent with written notice of a scheduled meeting at least Three (3) Days prior to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting will be to review and discuss the Charges before a final decision is reached." "Documentary evidence and written statements may be relied upon by the Faculty Member, as long as the Respondent is allowed to review and respond to them at the meeting. Respondents may also be allowed to bring relevant witnesses."

Source: Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF), §VI.A and §VI.B. The policy defines the term it counts in: "Day(s) refers to any day when the University is open for business and classes are in session." It also states the consequence of accepting the informal route: "Any Respondent has the option to accept an Informal Resolution. By accepting the Informal Resolution, the Respondent waives their right to a formal hearing and an appeal." The Office of Student Conduct's FAQ puts the same point in the student's own question — asked "Can I contest the academic penalty in an academic dishonesty case?", the office answers "No. By accepting the Informal Resolution offered by the Faculty Member you are waiving the right to a Formal Hearing/Appeal. However, you may decline the Informal Resolution and opt to go to a Formal Hearing with a University Student Conduct Board."

On the formal route, the policy states the notice period and the challenge right (retrieved Aug 27, 2026): "The Respondent will be notified in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing, along with any evidence that will be presented against them no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing." The notice "will also include any alleged violations of the Academic Dishonesty Policy, and the names of the University Student Conduct Board members who will adjudicate the case," and the student "will then have three (3) Days from the receipt of this notice to challenge any individual scheduled to be a part of the University Student Conduct Board hearing the case. The composition of the University Student Conduct Board may be challenged only based on a conflict of interest or perceived bias." Where a student has prior findings and faces possible suspension or expulsion, the policy routes the matter through an investigation first, with a Notice of Investigation, a preliminary investigative report sent to the student's university email, and a five-day window to respond to it. In a formal hearing the Board recommends rather than decides alone: "A written copy of the University Student Conduct Board's recommendations will be submitted to the Associate Dean/Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards or designee as a recommendation for administrative action."

The sanction range runs from a grade reduction to permanent separation. The policy lists "Reduction of a Grade/Academic Sanction: A reduction of a grade would apply to either the course assignment at issue or for the overall course grade (i.e., complete loss of credit for the course)," then disciplinary warning, disciplinary probation, disciplinary suspension, expulsion and educational sanctions, prefacing the list: "This list is not to be regarded as all-inclusive but rather as a sample of sanctions that may be imposed." Source: Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF), §VI.E.

On appeals, the policy states (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"All levels of appeal will only be considered for the following reasons: a. To consider new information, sufficient to alter the decision, or other relevant facts not brought out in the original hearing, because such information was not known or knowable to the person appealing during the time of the hearing; b. To allege a procedural error within the hearing process that may have substantially impacted the fairness of the hearing, including but not limited to whether any hearing questions were improperly excluded or whether the decision was tainted by a conflict of interest or bias […]; or c. To allege that the finding was inconsistent with the weight of the information." "A Student found responsible for violating this Policy will have five (5) Days from the Receipt of the official outcome letter to appeal. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Office of Student Conduct by 5pm on the final day for appeal. The appeal packet will be limited to a review of the record of the University Student Conduct Board, supporting documents, and the Student's written appeal." "The Provost or designee's decision will serve as the only level of appeal at the institutional level and shall be the final institutional decision." "Following the decision of the Provost or designee, a student may apply to the Board of Regents for further review of the decision pursuant to Board of Regents Policy 6.26."

Source: Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF), §VI.F.

Two further first-party points, both from the Office of Student Conduct's own pages (page's own modified date Aug 25, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). On the grade while a case is open, the office's FAQ states: "The professor will enter a grade of 'I'(Incomplete) and will submit a change of grade form once the final decision is made to reflect the appropriate grade earned in the course." And on where the governing text lives, the office states: "Academic Dishonesty Policy – Chapter Twelve of the Code of Student Conduct," noting for 2026-2027 that "Chapter Twelve – Academic Dishonesty regulations were updated to reflect most recent changes and/or additions." Source: Student Conduct — Division of Student Affairs. That hierarchy note matters for reading everything above: the standalone Academic Dishonesty Policy PDF quoted throughout this section states an issue date of September 20, 2021, while the Code of Student Conduct 2026-2027 that carries Chapter Twelve is dated 8-6-2026 in the university's policy repository; where the two differ, this page has quoted only the standalone policy, because that is the document it was able to capture. 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
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts — course-level AI statements, "language detection tools, proctoring tools, process analytic tools", approved-tool inventory, points of contact	digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu — Academic Affairs Policies 51 (issued Sep 26, 2025; PDF states "Revised: July 8, 2026"; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Academic Dishonesty Policy — reporting window, informal and formal resolution, third-party observer, advisor, sanctions, appeals	digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu — Academic Dishonesty Policy (PDF) (policy states "Issued: September 20, 2021"; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Code of Student Conduct 2026-2027 — Chapter Twelve carries the academic-dishonesty regulations	digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu — Student Affairs Policies 11 (repository states Date Issued 8-6-2026; landing page retrieved Aug 27, 2026; the 732 KB PDF itself could not be captured as text in this review and is linked by title)
Office of Student Conduct — due-process rights, advisor and family members, appeals, FAQ, office contact	georgiasouthern.edu/offices/student-conduct (page's own modified date Aug 25, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Turnitin (Faculty Center) — OriginalityCheck, Folio assignment-folder enablement, plagiarism-prevention disclaimer	georgiasouthern.edu — Turnitin, Faculty Center (page's own modified date Jun 25, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Turnitin (IT Services) — same feature list and disclaimer at a later revision	georgiasouthern.edu — Turnitin, IT Services (page's own modified date Feb 9, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
iThenticate — faculty researchers and graduate thesis and dissertation committees; student accounts unavailable	georgiasouthern.edu — iThenticate, Research Integrity (page's own modified date Oct 22, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Respondus LockDown Browser and Respondus Monitor — available to students through Folio; quizzes indicated in the title	georgiasouthern.edu — Respondus LockDown Browser, IT Services (page's own modified date Feb 9, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Respondus 4.0 — exam authoring; page states "This is NOT LOCKDOWN BROWSER"	georgiasouthern.edu — Respondus, IT Services (page's own modified date Oct 28, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
AI Fundamentals — required non-credit course for incoming students from Spring 2026, tied to the AI policy	georgiasouthern.edu — AI Fundamentals, University College (page's own modified date Aug 3, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026)
Record retention or transcript notation policy	None located on the institution's own pages in this review. Searched the Academic Dishonesty Policy in full, the Office of Student Conduct's pages, and the Registrar's student pages; the only located provisions are the "permanent file" held by the Office of the Provost, possible addition to the University System of Georgia's Student Disciplinary Actions Reporting System on disciplinary suspension, and a student's right to request a copy of their own Student Conduct Record (searched Aug 27, 2026)
Ombuds or student-advocacy office	None located on the institution's own pages in this review. Searched georgiasouthern.edu for "ombuds", "ombudsperson", "student advocacy" and "dean of students advocacy"; the only Georgia Southern result was a Faculty Senate agenda from the early 2000s asking whether an ombudsperson had been appointed, and neither the Academic Dishonesty Policy nor the Office of Student Conduct's pages name such an office (searched Aug 27, 2026)
Office of Student Conduct — office contact	Statesboro Campus, Russell Union 2022 · 912-478-0059 · studentconduct@georgiasouthern.edu — Armstrong & Liberty Campuses, Student Union D206 · 912-344-3300 · armstudentconduct@georgiasouthern.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 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 georgiasouthern.edu and digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Contexts policy PDF and the Academic Dishonesty Policy PDF were each read end to end and their own section numbering is what this page cites. Source page dates as displayed: the AI policy is issued September 26, 2025 and its PDF header states "Revised: July 8, 2026"; the Academic Dishonesty Policy PDF states "Issued: September 20, 2021"; the Faculty Center Turnitin page carries a modified date of Jun 25, 2025, the IT Services Turnitin and LockDown Browser pages Feb 9, 2026, the Respondus 4.0 page Oct 28, 2025, the iThenticate page Oct 22, 2025, the AI Fundamentals page Aug 3, 2026, and the Office of Student Conduct page Aug 25, 2026. Slug "georgiasouthern" is the Statesboro-headquartered Georgia Southern University, which also operates the Armstrong, Liberty and East Georgia campuses; it is a separate institution from Georgia State University (slug gsu) and the University of Georgia, each of which has its own page, and no statement from either was used here. Board of Regents and University System of Georgia material is named on this page only where Georgia Southern's own documents name it, and is never presented as Georgia Southern's own statement.

2026-08-27 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep on georgiasouthern.edu, ww2.georgiasouthern.edu, students.georgiasouthern.edu and the university's policy repository: Turnitin including its SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity. Category sweep: the Folio (D2L Brightspace) instructional-tool catalogue published by Learning Technology Support, the Faculty Center's Digital Learning Tools listing, the IT Services supported-software pages, the graduate thesis and dissertation screening pipeline run by Research Integrity, the Office of Student Conduct's pages, and the Office of the Provost's AI policy and faculty resources. Documented in institutional use on Georgia Southern's own pages: Turnitin similarity via Folio (instructor-enabled per assignment), iThenticate (faculty researchers and graduate thesis and dissertation committees; the university states student accounts are not available), and Respondus LockDown Browser with Respondus Monitor via Folio. Named on a Georgia Southern page at a weaker provenance and deliberately not upgraded: Turnitin Clarity, Grammarly Authorship, Visible AI, Codio and CodeGrade, which appear only inside the AI policy's definition of "Process Tracking Software" as examples of a category, with no located page stating the university licenses any of them. Came back empty in this review: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Honorlock, Proctorio and Examity, and — the significant negative — any first-party Georgia Southern statement naming, enabling, disabling or setting a threshold for a Turnitin AI writing indicator. Both Turnitin pages, in both revisions, list OriginalityCheck as the only feature.

2026-08-27 — Step-2 disqualification check: pass, run on the completed inventory rather than on the first tool found. Georgia Southern licenses and documents text-matching (Turnitin for coursework, iThenticate for graduate thesis and dissertation work) and a proctoring stack (Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor), and its 2025 AI policy expressly contemplates faculty using "language detection tools, proctoring tools, process analytic tools, and other appropriate approaches" where the course syllabus discloses them. Nothing recommending against AI detection, disabling a detector, or declaring detector output invalid was located on any Georgia Southern page. The absence of a documented Turnitin AI writing indicator is a finding about what the university publishes, not a statement that it has switched detection off, and the page says so in those terms rather than in either direction beyond them.

2026-08-27 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE, and the reason the "What follows on the record" row reads as an absence: no Georgia Southern document located in this review states whether an academic-dishonesty finding is noted on the transcript, how long it is retained, or whether it is disclosed to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards. Searched the Academic Dishonesty Policy in full, the Office of Student Conduct's due-process, appeals and FAQ material, and the Registrar's student pages. What was located instead — a "permanent file" held by the Office of the Provost, possible addition to the University System of Georgia's Student Disciplinary Actions Reporting System on disciplinary suspension, and the student's right to request a copy of their own conduct record — is quoted in the row rather than being allowed to stand in for an answer it does not give. (2) SUBSTANTIVE: the informal resolution waives both the formal hearing and the appeal, which the policy and the office's FAQ both state and which the page carries twice for that reason. (3) A hierarchy question is flagged rather than resolved: the Office of Student Conduct states the Academic Dishonesty Policy is Chapter Twelve of the Code of Student Conduct and that Chapter Twelve was updated for 2026-2027, while the standalone Academic Dishonesty Policy PDF quoted here states an issue date of September 20, 2021. The Code of Student Conduct 2026-2027 PDF (732 KB) could not be captured as text from this environment; it is linked by title in the source map and flagged for the next pass. Every procedural quotation on this page is from the standalone policy PDF, and the page states that limitation in section 02 rather than smoothing over it. (4) No ombuds or student-advocacy office was located; the Office of Student Conduct's advisor provision is a companion right inside the conduct process, not an independent office, and is not presented as one. (5) The AI policy's approved-AI-tool inventory, which it says is published "through Artificial Intelligence Resources", was not located as a public page; no tool is attributed to it here.

2026-08-27 — Deliberate omissions. The Code of Student Conduct 2025-2026 edition, still reachable in the policy repository, is not quoted or linked; only the current 2026-2027 entry is listed. The Turnitin, Respondus and iThenticate vendor documentation linked from Georgia Southern's own pages is third-party and is not reproduced or relied on — where a Georgia Southern page describes a product only by linking the vendor, that is stated as the provenance rather than quoted as the university's description. Law-firm pages marketing Georgia Southern–specific misconduct defence surfaced in search and are not used, linked or characterized. Named individual conduct officers listed on the office's scheduling table are not reproduced; the office's own published contact points are. 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. Every first-party source linked here was fetched again and compared against the page: the two Turnitin pages (modified 2025-06-25 and 2026-02-09), the 2025 AI policy landing page and PDF (Issued September 26, 2025 / Revised July 8, 2026), the RCOI iThenticate page (2025-10-22), the LockDown Browser and Respondus pages (2026-02-09, 2025-10-28), the AI Fundamentals page (2026-08-03), the Academic Dishonesty procedures PDF (Issued September 20, 2021), the Code of Student Conduct 2026-2027 landing page (Date Issued 8-6-2026) and the Office of Student Conduct page (modified 2026-08-25). All quotations still verbatim and all stated dates intact. Detection sweep re-run: no net-new detector and no status change — both Turnitin pages still list OriginalityCheck as the only feature with no AI-writing indicator, iThenticate remains scoped to faculty and graduate committees with student accounts unavailable, and Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor are unchanged; Grammarly Authorship, Turnitin Clarity, Visible AI, Codio and CodeGrade still appear only as category examples in the AI policy's Process Tracking Software definition. Both Student Conduct office contacts confirmed unchanged; no ombuds office is published, as recorded. 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.