Kent State University.

Detection status: Turnitin available to all faculty and students through Canvas and described by Kent State as able to “identify potential plagiarism, AI-assisted writing, and inconsistencies from what would be found in a typical paper,” with the university's own caution that “A high score does not automatically indicate that the student plagiarized”; University Libraries runs a separate Turnitin draft-checking service on request; Respondus Monitor documented as the current proctoring technology; a provost page naming Proctorio and dating its own figures to Spring 2020 was live through Aug 28, 2026 and has since moved or been withdrawn; no statement on the evidentiary use of an AI score located
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct · 595 Senhauser Dr., Kent, Ohio 44242 · 330-672-4054 · studentconduct@kent.edu · kent.edu — Office of Student Conduct. Scope stated by the office itself: it “may assist with the facilitation of academic hearing panels, but is not the source for the process or adjudication of academic misconduct,” which Policy 3342-3-01.8 governs.
Ombuds or advocacy office: Office of the Student Ombuds — “The primary goal of the Office of the Student Ombuds is to provide students confidential consultation in assisting with the possible resolution of any university-related concern, grievance or appeal,” per Kent State. The office also publishes a limit on its own role that matters here: “The Ombudsperson does not act as a witness or offer information in any student conduct or academic appeal proceeding, as such participation would undermine our commitment to confidentiality.” Amy Quillin, Ph.D., Student Ombuds · Kent Student Center, Room 250 · (330) 672-9494 · ombuds@kent.edu · kent.edu — Office of the Student Ombuds
Sources last checked: Sep 25, 2026
This record: Assembled from 14 linked documents on 2 hosts · change log below: 7 dated entries, Aug 27 to Oct 6, 2026 · human review confirmed Sep 25, 2026 · the change record across every page · the collection in numbers

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

Kent State's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. An academic-misconduct matter is governed by University Policy 3342-3-01.8, the administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism (policy effective date Aug 19, 2024), which carries its own definitions — including express generative-AI clauses — its own sanctions, its own hearing procedure before an Academic Hearing Panel, and its own appeal routes; the Office of Student Conduct states on its own academic-misconduct page that it is not the source for that process. The separate Code of Student Conduct and the Office of Student Conduct's own hearing process govern non-academic matters. Course syllabi may add rules of their own, and the policy repeatedly makes the instructor's express permission the pivot. 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

AI detection is documented at Kent State — in the same sentence that describes the plagiarism tool

Kent State's own quick-tip page for Turnitin in Canvas names AI-assisted writing among the things the tool is used to identify, and carries the university's caution about what a score means (posted Oct. 02, 2023; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"All faculty and students have access to the Turnitin tool through Canvas. This tool can be used to identify potential plagiarism, AI-assisted writing, and inconsistencies from what would be found in a typical paper. Turnitin can also be used to help your students check their drafts for issues before final submission." "A high score does not automatically indicate that the student plagiarized the assignment. Careful review of what is being considered in the report is very important."

Source: Quick Tip: Using Turnitin through Canvas — kent.edu/regional-campuses. Scope: Canvas assignments, available to all faculty and students. Who sees the results: the report appears in the gradebook and SpeedGrader for the instructor, and students may submit drafts to check their own work. The same wording appears on Kent State's Turnitin tag page at kent.edu/blog/turnitin.

A second and distinct Turnitin channel runs through University Libraries, and it belongs on this page because it is a route by which a student's own draft reaches the tool. The Libraries' plagiarism guide states (page marked Last Updated: Jun 26, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Turnitin is a Canvas component used to detect unoriginal text in student papers. Turnitin checks the paper against multiple sources and then generates an Originality Report. The report will highlight areas that could be potentially considered plagiarized." "It is important to note that just because Turnitin highlights an area does not mean it is plagiarized. Turnitin does not check that in-text citations and references are correct."

Source: Turnitin & Plagiarism Prevention — libguides.library.kent.edu. The Libraries describe submitting a student's draft paper to Turnitin on request and emailing the resulting Originality Report back with comments, noting the comments address issues found in the report rather than issues with the writing. That is a service to the student, distinct from the instructor-run Canvas assignment.

The proctoring stack is documented separately, and Kent State's own pages do not agree about which tool is current. The university's proctoring page states (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026): “When students are taking quizzes and/or exams online, proctoring can occur through the use of proctoring software such as Respondus Monitor,” and describes it as “an automated proctoring technology that allows students with a webcam and an internet connection to complete exams and quizzes while on camera; the service does not use live proctors but instead uses an automated algorithm to report on any exam session irregularities, which can be reviewed and interpreted by the class instructor.” Source: Proctoring — kent.edu/proctoring. A provost page live at the same time stated instead that “proctoring can occur through the use of proctoring software, such as Proctorio,” and dated its own figures to “Last Spring (2020)” (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026); both were reproduced here as Kent State then published them, with which was operative left undetermined. That page returns “Page not found” as of Sep 5, 2026; a search for a successor found nothing addressing proctoring or a Proctorio-versus-Respondus question, so the Proctorio quotation above is retained labeled with its last-verified date rather than removed, and the divergence it recorded should now be read as a snapshot of what Kent State published through Aug 28, 2026 rather than as a live inconsistency. Source (retrieved live through Aug 28, 2026; returns Page not found as of Sep 5, 2026 and HTTP 404 on Sep 25, 2026, so it is no longer linked): Academic Integrity and Options to Discourage Cheating — kent.edu/provost/academic-integrity-and-options-discourage-cheating.

The Center for Teaching and Learning's AI page has moved since the last review: kent.edu/ctl/language-generation, which read as “under redesign” through Aug 28, 2026, now also returns a page-not-found error. Its first-party successor, found by searching the CTL's current site navigation, carries the same absence: a hub page of GenAI teaching resources (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 5, 2026) names no AI-detection tool and makes no statement about detector reliability in either direction, the same finding as its predecessor under a different URL. Source: Generative AI Teaching Resources — kent.edu/ctl. Separately, an IT page for Turnitin at kent.edu/it/turnitin, which returned an empty body to a plain fetch in earlier reviews, was confirmed “Page not found” in a live browser session Sep 5, 2026; nothing is stated from it in either direction.

Stating the remaining absences at the scope actually searched: no AI-detection tool beyond Turnitin's was located as a Kent State deployment in this review across the named vendors — Turnitin and its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity — nor on the university's proctoring page, the provost's academic-integrity page, the Center for Teaching and Learning's AI pages, the Office of Student Conduct pages, or the University Libraries plagiarism guide. No separate IT service catalogue or Canvas external-tool list enumerating detectors was located as a readable page, and no separate graduate, thesis or dissertation originality-checking pipeline, and no iThenticate deployment, was located on the institution's own pages. No first-party statement addressing what weight an AI-writing score carries once a case is filed was located; the only weight language found is the Canvas quick tip's caution about high scores generally, which is quoted above.

02Published procedure

What Kent State's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: “At the hearing, the student may be accompanied by one other person of his or her choice. That person may act as an advisor to the student, but may not participate in the hearing procedure in any manner whatsoever. No party may be represented by legal counsel.” On recording, the same policy answers for the panel rather than for the student: “All AHP hearings are closed to the public and are recorded, minimally audio, using current technological equipment available (i.e. DVD). All technological recordings shall be destroyed in accordance with university recordkeeping protocol.” — University Policy 3342-3-01.8, administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism, §§F(1)(a) and I(5) (policy effective date Aug 19, 2024; prior effective dates back to 1977; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · kent.edu — Policy 3342-3-01.8. Whether a student may make their own recording is not stated in the sources reviewed; searched Policy 3342-3-01.8 in full, the Office of Student Conduct's Student Conduct Process page and its Appeal page, which refers to “the digital recording of the hearing” being compiled for an appeal, and no provision addressing a student's own recording was located.
What follows on the record: “If a sanction grade was assigned, it should remain on the transcript.” — University Policy 3342-3-01.8, §§D(2)(b)(i) and D(2)(c)(i), stated for disciplinary suspension and for disciplinary dismissal (policy effective date Aug 19, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · kent.edu — Policy 3342-3-01.8. On retention and disclosure: not stated in the sources reviewed. No retention period for an academic-misconduct record was located in Policy 3342-3-01.8 or on the Office of Student Conduct's pages; the policy states only, of hearing recordings, that they “shall be destroyed in accordance with university recordkeeping protocol,” without publishing the protocol. On disclosure, the office's FERPA page describes the mechanism by which a student may grant a third party access to “student conduct history information” through FlashLine and notes that “FERPA already allows you access to your own student education record” — that is access mechanics, not a statement of what is disclosed to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards, and no such statement was located · kent.edu/studentconduct/ferpa.

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

Kent State's cheating-and-plagiarism policy is one of the few on this site that writes generative AI directly into its own definitions rather than reaching it through a general unauthorized-assistance clause (policy effective date Aug 19, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

"Using notes, textbooks or other information, or content generated by internet-based generative artificial intelligence programs (GAI), in examinations, tests and quizzes, except as expressly permitted by the instructor" "Using GAI to generate content in satisfaction of assigned coursework, except as expressly permitted by the instructor in the syllabus, or applicable assignment"

Source: Policy 3342-3-01.8 — kent.edu/policyreg. The policy's plagiarism definition reaches the same ground from the other side, covering the taking of “the ideas or words of another (e.g. person, persons, or GAI).” In both clauses the pivot is the instructor's express permission, which is what puts the syllabus at the centre of a case.

The same policy sets out how a matter starts, who carries the burden, and how it can be appealed:

"Inform the student as soon as is practical" "provide a copy of the cheating/plagiarism sanction form to the office of student conduct" "The burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that cheating or plagiarism occurred is on the person who claims the act took place." "An appeal of a sanction imposed by an instructor or a dean must be filed with the office of student conduct by the student within fifteen working days of receipt of the cheating/plagiarism sanction form." "Students, faculty, and deans may appeal the decisions of the hearing board or officers to the provost. No additional appeal will be heard... An appeal must be in writing, must state clearly the rationale for the appeal and must be submitted within seven calendar days of the date of the decision."

Source: Policy 3342-3-01.8 — kent.edu/policyreg. The policy states that the sanction form “also serves to inform the student of the right to appeal,” and that the office of student conduct forwards copies to the student, the department chair or dean, and the dean of the college of enrolment. Two different appeal windows appear in the policy's own text — fifteen working days for an appeal of an instructor's or dean's sanction, seven calendar days for a further appeal of an Academic Hearing Panel decision to the provost — and both are quoted above as the policy states them, rather than being reconciled here. The sanctions the policy makes available run from refusing credit and assigning an F or zero on the item or in the course, through an Academic Integrity or “Plagiarism School” mitigation route, to degree-level consequences including rejection of a thesis or dissertation and a recommendation to revoke a degree, alongside the disciplinary sanctions an Academic Hearing Panel may impose.

The Office of Student Conduct publishes the process for the matters it does handle (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026): “a written notification (typically an email to the KSU address, in accordance with Kent State University's Code of Student Conduct, Section 1.E and Policy Register 9-01.2) will be provided to the accused student with (or to set up) a hearing date, time and location,” with the same preponderance standard, and an appeal route under which “the Student (or the Complainant) may submit an appeal, to the Office of Student Conduct within seven calendar days from the conclusion of the hearing,” decided by a three-person appeal panel reporting to the vice president for student affairs, whose decision the office states is final. Source: The Student Conduct Process — kent.edu/studentconduct/student-conduct-process. For academic cases specifically, the office's appeal page names an individual: “Appeals of an Academic Hearing Panel decision should be submitted to Dr. Scott Sheridan, Interim Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, at ssherid1@kent.edu.” Source: Appeal — kent.edu/studentconduct/appeal.

A second first-party page, part of a kent.edu/plagiarism section not found in earlier reviews, restates the advisor and recording sentences above word for word and adds the Academic Hearing Panel's own composition (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 5, 2026):

"Composition - appointed by the Provost: a minimum of ten KSU Faculty, five having Graduate Faculty Status (staggered, serving terms of two years), a minimum of five current KSU Graduate Students (serving a one-year term), and a minimum of five current KSU Undergraduate Students (serving a one-year term). The Provost will appoint one faculty member as chair at the beginning of each fiscal year." "Charge - For the purpose of holding a hearing, the chair will select a hearing committee of three AHP members (two faculty and one student)." "Eligibility - Faculty who are current instructors of the accused student, faculty of the instructor's department, and any student appointed to the AHP who shares a class, residence, or known affiliation with the accused student are not eligible to sit on the AHP hearing committee for that respective accused student."

Source: Academic Hearing Panel — kent.edu/plagiarism. This page's advisor and recording sentences match Policy 3342-3-01.8 verbatim; only the composition, charge and eligibility detail is new here.

The Code of Student Conduct, at kent.edu/studentconduct/code-student-conduct, exceeded what could be captured in earlier reviews and was read in full this review. Its own text answers a question those reviews left open — whether its general hearing, recording and transcript provisions reach academic misconduct — and the answer is no, in the Code's own words (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 5, 2026):

"Plagiarism, cheating and other forms of academic misconduct are subject to processes outlined in administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism (3-01.8). The university provost (or designee) holds the authority to resolve academic misconduct, and the Office of Student Conduct may assist with logistical, administrative and/or facilitative actions as necessary."

Source: Code of Student Conduct — kent.edu/studentconduct. This corroborates the Academic Misconduct page's own scope statement, quoted in the docket above, from the other direction. It also means the Code's all-hearings-are-recorded rule, its rule that a disciplinary notation never reaches an official transcript, and its own appeal windows govern the Code's own, non-academic process — none of them is attributed to an academic-misconduct case on this page for that reason. Separately, the University Libraries page for Academic Integrity School describes the mitigation route the policy names: “This program serves to address less severe academic integrity violations or those deemed unintentional… Academic Integrity School is a one-on-one session lasting about 45 minutes,” with “Learn how to ethically use GenAI” among the session content. Source: libguides.library.kent.edu — Academic Integrity School. 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 Policy 3342-3-01.8 — administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism (policy effective date Aug 19, 2024): generative-AI clauses, preponderance, advisor and legal-counsel rule, recorded hearings, sanctions, appeal windows, transcript sentence	kent.edu/policyreg — Policy 3342-3-01.8
Code of Student Conduct — its own carve-out routing academic misconduct to Policy 3342-3-01.8; not the source of the academic-misconduct provisions on this page	kent.edu/studentconduct/code-student-conduct
Academic Hearing Panel — Academic Hearing Panel composition, charge and eligibility	kent.edu/plagiarism/academic-hearing-panel
The Student Conduct Process (notification, preponderance, sanctions list, appeal panel)	kent.edu/studentconduct/student-conduct-process
Appeal (route for Academic Hearing Panel decisions)	kent.edu/studentconduct/appeal
Academic Misconduct (the office's own statement of its scope)	kent.edu/studentconduct/academic-misconduct
Office of Student Conduct (contact)	595 Senhauser Dr., Kent, Ohio 44242 · 330-672-4054 · studentconduct@kent.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · kent.edu/studentconduct
FERPA and student conduct history (third-party access mechanism)	kent.edu/studentconduct/ferpa
Quick Tip: Using Turnitin through Canvas (posted Oct. 02, 2023 — “potential plagiarism, AI-assisted writing”)	kent.edu/regional-campuses — Quick Tip: Turnitin
Turnitin & Plagiarism Prevention, University Libraries (Last Updated Jun 26, 2026 — the Libraries' draft-checking service)	libguides.library.kent.edu — Turnitin
Academic Integrity School, University Libraries (the mitigation route Policy 3342-3-01.8 names)	libguides.library.kent.edu — Academic Integrity School
Proctoring (Respondus Monitor as the named proctoring technology)	kent.edu/proctoring
Academic Integrity and Options to Discourage Cheating, Office of the Provost (named Proctorio, cited Spring 2020 figures; live through Aug 28, 2026, returns Page not found as of Sep 5, 2026, quoted content retained at its last-verified date; HTTP 404 again on Sep 25, 2026)	kent.edu/provost/academic-integrity-and-options-discourage-cheating (no longer linked)
Generative AI Teaching Resources, Center for Teaching and Learning (successor to kent.edu/ctl/language-generation, which now returns Page not found; names no detector)	kent.edu/ctl/generative-ai-teaching-resources
Office of the Student Ombuds (contact and self-description)	Amy Quillin, Ph.D. · Kent Student Center, Room 250 · (330) 672-9494 · ombuds@kent.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · kent.edu/studentlife/student-ombuds

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. All quotations captured this date, first-party, from the kent.edu and libguides.library.kent.edu pages linked beside them; every source quoted here was fetched and read as text rather than summarized. Source dates as the sources give them: Policy 3342-3-01.8 carries a policy effective date of Aug 19, 2024 with prior effective dates back to 1977; the Turnitin quick tip is posted Oct. 02, 2023; the Libraries' Turnitin guide is marked Last Updated: Jun 26, 2026; the proctoring page, the provost's academic-integrity page, the Office of Student Conduct pages and the Student Ombuds page display no on-page date, which is stated beside each quotation. Detection sweep recorded for a later reviewer. Named-vendor sweep — Turnitin (including SimCheck and Originality), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity: Turnitin found and documented in two channels, the Canvas tool available to all faculty and students and the University Libraries' draft-checking service; Respondus Monitor found as the proctoring technology named on the current proctoring page; Proctorio found only on a provost page whose own figures date to Spring 2020, reproduced as a live inconsistency rather than as a current deployment; Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock and Examity: nothing located. Category sweep — the university's proctoring page; the provost's academic-integrity page; the Center for Teaching and Learning's AI pages; the Office of Student Conduct pages; the University Libraries plagiarism guide and Academic Integrity School page; graduate, thesis and dissertation pipeline (nothing located, no separate originality-checking workflow and no iThenticate). Two pages could not be read as text and nothing is stated from either: kent.edu/it/turnitin returned an empty body to a plain fetch, and kent.edu/studentconduct/code-student-conduct exceeded what could be captured in this run — the Code is therefore listed by title and link only, and nothing on this page is attributed to its text; both need a manual read. Recorded because the queue asked for it specifically: the Center for Teaching and Learning's language-generation page WAS read this run, and the caution language the pre-screening scan expected there does not exist — the page is mid-redesign, displays “This site is currently under redesign. Please come back later in July to see a more useful page!”, names no detection tool, and carries no statement about detector reliability in either direction. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: Kent State has not disabled or recommended against AI detection across the board — its own quick tip names AI-assisted writing among what the Canvas tool identifies, and the cautions located (“A high score does not automatically indicate that the student plagiarized”; “just because Turnitin highlights an area does not mean it is plagiarized”) go to the reading of a score rather than to the availability of the tool. Divergence reproduced and not resolved: the current proctoring page names Respondus Monitor while a live provost page names Proctorio. Deliberate omissions: a search result asserting that Kent State has disabled the Respondus environment-scan feature at the request of university leadership could not be traced to any Kent State page and is not carried forward in any form; a search result asserting Honorlock is not in use at Kent State is likewise a third-party characterisation and is not treated as a first-party negative — the sweep's own empty result is what is reported. A separate Faculty and Staff Ombudsperson exists and was not independently read; it is out of scope for this page and nothing is claimed about it. Nothing paraphrase-pending — every quotation on this page was captured as text. Absences recorded as findings: no first-party statement on the evidentiary weight of an AI-writing score once a case is filed; no provision on whether a student may make their own recording; no retention period for an academic-misconduct record and no statement of disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards; and two policy appeal windows, fifteen working days and seven calendar days, reproduced as the policy states them. Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-28 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; every quotation intact and no page revised. Retrieved and checked: the Turnitin quick tip (the AI-assisted-writing and high-score-caution quotations intact; posted Oct. 02, 2023), the University Libraries Turnitin guide (the draft-checking quotations intact; Last Updated Jun 26, 2026), the proctoring page (the Respondus Monitor description intact), the provost page (still naming Proctorio and citing Spring 2020 figures — the divergence stands), Policy 3342-3-01.8 (still policy effective date Aug 19, 2024; the generative-AI clauses, the burden/preponderance sentence, the one-advisor-may-not-participate and no-legal-counsel rule, the recorded-hearings sentence, the sanction-grade-remains-on-transcript sentence, and the fifteen-working-day and seven-calendar-day appeal windows all verbatim), the Student Conduct Process and Appeal pages (the notification, seven-day appeal and Dr. Scott Sheridan academic-appeal quotations intact), the Academic Misconduct page (the office's not-the-source scope statement intact), the FERPA page, the Academic Integrity School page (the 45-minute session and “Learn how to ethically use GenAI” content intact), and the Student Ombuds page (the confidential-consultation goal and the does-not-act-as-a-witness limitation intact; Amy Quillin, Kent Student Center Room 250, (330) 672-9494, ombuds@kent.edu). Office contact re-confirmed — Office of Student Conduct, 595 Senhauser Dr., 330-672-4054, studentconduct@kent.edu.

2026-08-28 — Detection status unchanged; two items carried forward. Turnitin remains the documented detector in both channels (the Canvas tool and the Libraries' draft-checking service), the Respondus-Monitor-versus-Proctorio proctoring divergence between the proctoring page and the provost page remains live and unreconciled, and the named-vendor sweep again returned nothing for Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock and Examity. The Center for Teaching and Learning's language-generation page was re-fetched and still carries its “under redesign … come back later in July” notice and names no detector. Step-2 disqualification check: clear pass, unchanged. Carried forward from build: kent.edu/it/turnitin was not re-fetched this pass, and the Code of Student Conduct remained uncaptured; both stay open for a manual read. Internet Archive captures still pending: Save Page Now was blocked from this run environment this date.

2026-09-05 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no human review is claimed for this entry. The two items this log has carried open since 2026-08-27 were resolved. The Code of Student Conduct (kent.edu/studentconduct/code-student-conduct), previously listed by title and link only because it exceeded what could be captured, was read in full; its own text states plainly that “plagiarism, cheating and other forms of academic misconduct are subject to processes outlined in administrative policy regarding student cheating and plagiarism (3-01.8)” — confirming, from the Code's own side, the division of authority the Academic Misconduct page already asserted, and confirming that the Code's own recording, transcript-notation and appeal provisions govern its own non-academic process rather than academic-misconduct cases. kent.edu/it/turnitin, previously an empty body to a plain fetch, was confirmed “Page not found” in a live browser session; nothing was ever, or is now, attributed to it. Two sources moved or went dark since the last review, discovered while re-fetching: the Center for Teaching and Learning's language-generation page (previously “under redesign”) now also returns a page-not-found error; its first-party successor, a Generative AI Teaching Resources hub found by searching the CTL's current navigation, names no detector and states nothing about detector reliability, the same finding as its predecessor. The provost's Academic Integrity and Options to Discourage Cheating page — the source for the Proctorio-versus-Respondus divergence and the Spring 2020 figures — now also returns a page-not-found error; a search for a successor found nothing addressing proctoring, so both quotations are retained on the page labeled with their last-verified date (Aug 27, 2026) rather than removed, and this source now fails fidelity by design (recorded below). One new first-party page was found while searching for the Code: kent.edu/plagiarism/academic-hearing-panel restates the advisor-and-recording sentences already quoted from Policy 3342-3-01.8 word for word and adds the Academic Hearing Panel's composition, charge and eligibility rules, now quoted in section 02. All other previously-quoted sources — the Turnitin quick tip, the Turnitin tag page, the Libraries' Turnitin guide, the proctoring page, Policy 3342-3-01.8 in full, the Student Conduct Process page, the Appeal page, the Academic Misconduct page, the FERPA page, the Academic Integrity School page, and the Student Ombuds page — were re-fetched and every quotation traced unchanged. Detection sweep re-run (named-vendor and category); no change — Turnitin in two channels and Respondus Monitor remain the only documented deployments, and a web search dated this date found nothing beyond them on kent.edu. Step-2 disqualification check: PASS, unchanged. Office and Ombuds contacts re-confirmed unchanged. Also corrected, unrelated to the above: a scare-quoted “unauthorized assistance” in section 02, describing a clause pattern common to other schools' policies rather than a phrase quoted from Kent State's own text, was rewritten as plain description — it was failing fidelity for exactly that reason and the fix is a page-side correction, not a finding about the source. This page traces to tools/packets/kentstate-packet.txt with 2 failures, both the retained provost-page quotations described above and both expected; it remains ungated in tools/fidelity-gate.txt for that reason. Internet Archive captures: still pending, as of the 2026-08-28 entry above; not this routine's work to pursue.

2026-09-13 — Editorial review. Carrie Schluter read this page in full against its recorded first-party sources and found no change required. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-13).

2026-09-25 — Dead-link repair and source re-verification, run by an automated agent in an attended session; Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-25). The Provost's page “Academic Integrity and Options to Discourage Cheating”, recorded here as Page not found since Sep 5, 2026, returned HTTP 404 again to a cloud crawler and to curl on the host; a web search found no successor on kent.edu, only older Proctorio documents. The quotations drawn from it stay labeled with their last-verified date, and the address is no longer linked in section 01 or the source map. It was dropped from the capture recipe, which had never captured it. Every source in this page's capture recipe was re-fetched this date by tools/capture.py on the host (review capture tools/packets/review/kentstate-2026-09-25.txt); the checker reports 2 failures, the same 2 as before this pass (the two retained provost-page quotations). Detection status unchanged.

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