Academic governance

A tool that tells a student their methodology does not fit their question is making an academic judgement. Somebody has to be answerable for that judgement, and it cannot be a model.

So two things are held outside the software and outside the AI: the structure of each document type — what sections it has, in what order, which are required — and the rubric each critique is made against. Both are reviewed and signed off by the Academic Supervisor Board before they can be used, and the sign-off is recorded with a name and a date.

The Board's members are not published yet. Every structure and rubric now in service has been reviewed and signed off — the register above is that record — but we will not print an academic's name here until they have agreed to stand behind the work publicly.

If you supervise research and want a say in what this tool asks your students, write to us. Reviewers are named here, with their consent, and their remit is stated.

• No text a student could submit. Critique is returned as strengths, weaknesses, omissions and questions. Anything that comes back as ordinary prose is rejected before the student sees it.
• No sources. The AI Supervisor never names a reference, because AI systems invent citations that look correct. Students record their own reading and it is reviewed against them.
• Structure before argument. Sections unlock in order, so a methodology cannot be written before a research question is settled.
• Disagreement is recorded, not overruled. A student may acknowledge a concern and keep their own position; that choice is kept in the record rather than hidden.
• Supervision is complemented, never replaced. Supervisor access is read-only by design — nobody but the student can change the student's words.