University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Detection status: Faculty guidance names Copyleaks and GPTZero as the free AI-text detectors "most reliable at this time"; Turnitin is confirmed only for similarity/plagiarism checking, not AI-writing detection
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct · University Center, Suite 399, 615 McCallie Ave, Dept 1951, Chattanooga, TN 37403 · 423-425-4301 · conduct@utc.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Office of the Dean of Students — self-described as "Your advocate. Your connector," stating "Students may seek assistance, advocacy, and satisfactory resolutions to problems through our office." Not described by UTC as independent or confidential. UTC's separate Office of the Ombudsperson exists but states it serves only "the faculty, staff and administrators throughout the UTC community" — not students — so it is not used here · utc.edu — Dean of Students
Sources last checked: Sep 30, 2026

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

UTC's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi and department rules may also apply, and UTC itself asks faculty to set their own AI policies on their syllabi. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Detector guidance exists at UTC, outside Turnitin

UTC's Walker Center for Teaching and Learning, on its "Generative AI and Academic Misconduct" page for faculty (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 30, 2026), states:

"While AI generated language detectors are not always fully reliable, they can produce useful evidence for taking a case to the Office of Student Conduct. These detectors will develop over time, and the "best" product out there will change as the technology advances." "As the capabilities of Generative AI evolve, so does the reliance on AI content detectors to attempt to identify AI-generated content. It's important to acknowledge the uneven reliability of these tools. […] a false positive rate of just 4% translates into potentially hundreds or even thousands of inaccurate detections across our campus." "We believe that these problems—stemming from inaccuracies and fluctuating reliability—could lead to undue stress and confusion for both students and faculty. When determining the authenticity of submitted work, we advocate for a more holistic approach that includes critical human evaluation and fostering open conversations with students about academic integrity." "Below are the free detectors we find to be most reliable at this time. Please note that efforts must be made to protect student information and privacy if you do opt to utilize these tools. No identifiable information should ever be entered into one of these tools." — naming Copyleaks and GPTZero.

The same page lists "[t]he results from a detection tool for generative AI writing" among the items a faculty member is asked to attach to an Office of Student Conduct report, alongside the syllabus statement, the suspicious work, other writing by the student, and a summary of the incident. Source: Generative AI and Academic Misconduct — Walker Center for Teaching and Learning (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 30, 2026).

Separately, UTC's own description of Turnitin names only similarity checking, not AI-writing detection: "Turnitin Similarity is UTC's supported similarity checker and plagiarism detection tool for files submitted through UTC Learn (Canvas) assignments," comparing submissions against "Turnitin's database of previously submitted papers, published research papers, and numerous internet resources." No AI-writing-detection feature is named on this page or on UTC's Canvas-configuration guide for the tool. Sources: Turnitin Similarity: Plagiarism Detection and Turnitin — Enable for Canvas Assignments (neither carries an on-page date; retrieved Sep 30, 2026). A named-vendor sweep of utc.edu (Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of UTC's teaching-center, IT, and library pages found no detector beyond Copyleaks, GPTZero, and Turnitin Similarity.

02Published process

What UTC's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "[T]he complainant (survivor/victim) and respondent (accused) have the right to be accompanied by an advisor of their choosing (e.g. student, faculty member, staff member, relative, or legal counsel)," though an advisor "cannot and do not legally represent complainants or respondents and may not participate in the hearing process in any other role." On recording, the Honor Code states an Honor Code Board Hearing's record is made by the University itself: "An audio or video record will be made of the hearing, except for the portion of the hearing in which the Honor Code Board members deliberate and vote on their decision." An Honor Code Officer Hearing's record is discretionary: "An audio or video record may be made of the hearing." Neither provision addresses a party's own recording device. Sources: Advisors and the UTC Honor Code, Sections 8(4)(i) and 9(7)(i) (Adopted January 2020; retrieved Sep 30, 2026).
What follows on the record: Not a transcript notation by that name — the Honor Code contains no occurrence of "transcript" — but a student conduct record: "A student's records relating to violations of the Honor Code are maintained by the Office of Student Conduct as part of the student's student conduct record," and a related grade-modification or withdrawal record is separately "maintained by the University Records Office as part of a student's academic record." Retention: "The University will retain a student's student conduct records for a period of seven (7) years after the student's last date of enrollment," except that the Office of Student Conduct "will permanently retain student conduct records for students who receive" Suspension, Permanent Dismissal, Withholding of Degree, or Revocation of Degree. Source: UTC Honor Code, Section 12 (Adopted January 2020; retrieved Sep 30, 2026).

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

UTC's Honor Code (Adopted January 2020; retrieved Sep 30, 2026) is administered by the Office of Student Conduct, and it describes the process this way:

"The University may initiate the Honor Code process on the basis of written allegations received from a Complainant. The University may also initiate the Honor Code process in the absence of written allegations if the University becomes aware, through other means, of potential Honor Code violations committed by a student." "If the Office of Student Conduct (or designee) determines to initiate the Honor Code process, it will provide a Notice of Allegations to the Respondent." The notice informs the Respondent of the investigation, describes the alleged violation, notifies the right to an advisor, and either schedules or instructs the Respondent to schedule a Preliminary Meeting — the Respondent must contact the office "within five (5) business days of the effective date of the notice" or waive that right. "The Honor Code Board members will apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether or not the Respondent is responsible for the charged Honor Code violation(s)." (Section 8(4)(h), governing an Honor Code Officer Hearing, states the identical standard for that hearing type.) Rights of the Respondent include: "The right to remain silent in any investigation, meeting, or hearing." "The right to access any information or documents that will be used during a hearing, unless prohibited by law." "The right not to be questioned directly by the Complainant during a hearing." "The right to be assisted by an advisor during all stages of the Honor Code process […]." Sanctions "may be imposed on a student found to have violated the Honor Code": Grade Modification, Disciplinary Reprimand, Disciplinary Probation, Educational Sanction, Suspension, Permanent Dismissal, Withholding of Degree, and Revocation of Degree — and "more than one (1)" may be imposed for a single violation. "The decision of an Honor Code Officer in an Honor Code Officer Hearing or the Honor Code Board in an Honor Code Board Hearing may be appealed to the Provost […] within five (5) business days of the effective date of the Notice of Decision," on one of four stated grounds (a rights violation, new material information, a decision unsupported by the preponderance standard, or a disproportionate sanction). The non-appealing party may respond "within three (3) business days," and "[w]ithin ten (10) business days of the Office of Student Conduct's receipt of the Notice of Appeal or the non-appealing party's response to the appeal, whichever occurs later, the Provost (or his or her designee) will provide notice to the parties of his or her decision."

Source: UTC Honor Code (Adopted January 2020 — confirmed current on UTC's Codes page; retrieved Sep 30, 2026). Reports are filed through an electronic form at utc.edu/hcreport, per the Walker Center's misconduct-reporting page above. The Honor Code's own list of violations (Cheating, Plagiarism, Falsification/Fabrication/Misrepresentation, Use of Unauthorized Materials, Use of Unauthorized Assistance, Gaining Unfair Advantage, Causing Unfair Disadvantage, Attempting or Assisting a Violation) contains no occurrence of the terms artificial intelligence, AI, or generative — a suspected AI-writing case is charged under these existing categories, not a dedicated one. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Generative AI and Academic Misconduct (detector guidance, reporting requirements)	utc.edu — Generative AI and Academic Misconduct
Turnitin Similarity: Plagiarism Detection (scope confirmation)	utc.edu/turnitin-similarity-plagiarism-detection
Turnitin — Enable for Canvas Assignments	utc.edu/turnitin-enable-for-canvas-assignments
UTC Honor Code (Adopted January 2020, PDF)	utc.edu/sites/default/files/2021-03/honorcode_01-2020.pdf
Honor Code Process (overview; Office of Student Conduct contact)	utc.edu — Honor Code Process
Student Conduct (OSC mission statement, contact)	utc.edu — Student Conduct
Student Conduct Process (overview, preponderance standard)	utc.edu — Student Conduct Process
Advisors (accompaniment; Respondent Support Services)	utc.edu — Advisors
Codes (current Honor Code and Student Code of Conduct versions)	utc.edu — Student Code of Conduct / Codes
Dean of Students (advocacy office)	utc.edu — Dean of Students
Office of the Ombudsperson — About Us (who it serves)	utc.edu — Office of the Ombudsperson, About Us

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

2026-09-30 — Page created. Cold build; no prior CANDIDATES.md or procedure-facts.json research to reuse. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (Walker Center for Teaching and Learning pages, IT/Canvas configuration guides, Office of Student Conduct and Honor Code pages) found Copyleaks and GPTZero named as faculty-recommended free AI-text detectors and Turnitin Similarity confirmed for plagiarism/similarity checking only; no other detector located. Not disqualified: the detectors are recommended for use, with reliability caveats, not disabled or recommended against — the Walker Center page advocates pairing them with "critical human evaluation" rather than avoiding them. All quoted pages retrieved this date; none of the Walker Center or Office of Student Conduct HTML pages displays an on-page revision date, so each is dated by retrieval only. The UTC Honor Code (PDF) states "Adopted January 2020" on every page footer, confirmed current against UTC's own Codes page, which also lists the Student Code of Conduct's current version as "Revised August 14, 2020." No occurrence of "artificial intelligence," "AI," "generative," or "transcript" appears anywhere in the Honor Code text — recorded as an absence rather than assumed. Ombuds trap checked and failed: UTC's Office of the Ombudsperson (established effective September 2024) states on its own About Us page that it "provides independent, impartial, informal and confidential professional resources to the faculty, staff and administrators throughout the UTC community" — no mention of students — so it is not presented here as a student resource; the Office of the Dean of Students is used instead for the docket's advocacy row, quoted only for what it says of itself, and not characterized as independent or confidential because UTC does not describe it that way. Respondent Support Services (University Center, Room 399, 423-425-2299, sos@utc.edu) is recorded separately in section 02 as the process-specific accompaniment resource for a Respondent, distinct from Survivor Advocacy Services for a Complainant. Two office emails (conduct@utc.edu, dos@utc.edu, sos@utc.edu) were published only in Cloudflare's obfuscated data-cfemail markup, not plain text; each was decoded from the page's own HTML, a standard, documented, reversible encoding, and recorded as such. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-30).

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