Rules guide

A process for suspected AI misuse before authentication.

From September 2026, JCQ, the group that writes the shared rules for the main exam boards, asks every centre to have a process ready for when a teacher suspects AI misuse before a student signs their declaration. AI tools, like ChatGPT, can write or change text for you. Here’s what the process should cover, where the line with the awarding body sits, and how to keep it fair.

Last reviewed: 2 Nov 2026
Checked against: JCQ documents effective 1 September 2026

In short

Before the student signs their declaration, the centre deals with a worry itself. It doesn’t go to the awarding body.
After they sign, the head of centre reports it to the awarding body on form JCQ/M1.
The teacher writes down what they noticed, with specific examples, and passes it to the exams officer or a senior leader.
The student is invited to talk about how they made the work, and to give their side, before anything is decided.
Software that guesses whether AI wrote something is never enough on its own.

What JCQ now asks for

JCQ’s AI Use in Assessments document lists this as a new requirement for September 2026. Among the things centres must do:

“Have a process in place for teaching staff to follow where misuse of AI is suspected before the student has signed the declaration form, as this does not need reporting to the awarding organisation and must be dealt with by the centre directly.”

JCQ AI Use in Assessments, September 2026, section 4

What this means: the decision is yours. JCQ says the centre is responsible for deciding the next steps, and a teacher shouldn’t send the work to the awarding body for a decision (section 7).

Before and after the declaration

The dividing line is the moment the student signs their declaration of authentication: the statement that the work is their own.

Before they sign: the centre deals with it under its own procedures (coursework instructions, 6.2). There is one exception. A breach of the assessment conditions, such as having notes, talking to other candidates or seeing the board’s confidential material, must still be reported to the awarding body.

After they sign: it becomes a matter for the awarding body.

“If AI misuse is detected or suspected by the centre and the declaration of authentication has been signed by the student, the case must be reported to the relevant awarding organisation.”

JCQ AI Use in Assessments, September 2026, section 9

The head of centre sends full details straight away, on form JCQ/M1, following JCQ’s Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures. The awarding body then decides the outcome and any sanction.

What the teacher does first

If a teacher suspects AI misuse at any stage, JCQ sets out three steps (section 8):

Gather evidence. That can mean trying to recreate part of the work with AI, a face-to-face meeting with the student about how they made it, and comparing the work with earlier work and drafts.
Record the worry clearly, with specific examples.
Refer it to the exams officer or a senior leader, as the centre’s malpractice policy says.

“Record the concerns clearly, including specific examples.”

JCQ AI Use in Assessments, September 2026, section 8

What your written process should cover

JCQ says the steps for these cases belong in the centre’s malpractice policy, which a senior leader reviews every year (AI Use in Assessments, sections 4 and 9). A clear process answers these questions:

Who the teacher tells. Name the exams officer or senior leader.
What gets written down. What was noticed, the examples, and the evidence behind each one.
How the student is heard. When and how they are invited to talk, and how their account is recorded.
Who decides. Ideally someone other than the person who raised it.
The possible outcomes. For example, no further action, or the work can’t be accepted.
How the student can appeal. See below.

Two rules from the coursework instructions shape the outcomes. If a teacher can’t sign the authentication statement, the work can’t be accepted and a mark of zero is submitted (7.6). Details of any work that isn’t the student’s own are recorded on the board’s authentication form or another suitable place (6.2). Any sanction beyond that comes from your centre’s own malpractice policy: check it with your exams officer.

Keeping it fair to the student

JCQ suggests talking to the student: asking them to talk you through the work, how they approached it, and their earlier versions (section 8). A student who wrote the work can usually explain it.

For cases reported after the declaration, JCQ requires that the student is told what they are accused of, sees the evidence, and can give a written statement (section 9). Before the declaration, JCQ leaves the steps to you. Our suggestion is to give the same fairness:

Invite the student to a conversation about how their work was made, with a date, time and place.
Ask them to bring notes, drafts and their document’s version history.
Show them what was noticed, and let them give their own account, in writing or out loud.
Tell them the outcome and what happens next.

The coursework instructions also require a published internal appeals procedure that covers decisions to reject work for malpractice, or because it couldn’t be authenticated (6.4).

Software is only part of the picture

JCQ names some tools that estimate whether text was written by AI, but warns that:

“they can produce both false positives and false negatives.”

JCQ AI Use in Assessments, September 2026, section 8

What this means: they can get it wrong both ways. JCQ says they must be one part of a wider judgement, with all the information considered. A score should never be the only example in a record.

Worries about staff help

This process is for candidate work. If the worry is about help a member of staff gave, it goes to the head of centre or straight to the awarding body (coursework instructions, 6.7). Failing to report suspected malpractice is malpractice in itself, and JCQ warns that accepting work staff suspect isn’t the student’s own, without looking into it, is likely to be staff malpractice (AI Use in Assessments, section 4).

In your subject

JCQ’s steps are the same in every subject: gather evidence, record the worry with examples, and refer it (AI Use in Assessments, section 8). What you can look at and ask depends on the subject and the exam board. Where we found no board guidance, JCQ’s steps apply: check your board’s guidance too.

All exam boards (JCQ)

Any subject. JCQ says you can ask the candidate to talk you through the work and their earlier versions, compare it with earlier work and review drafts (section 8).

Sources and quotations. JCQ’s signs to look for include references that can’t be found or checked, and quotations that can’t be traced to their stated source (section 8).

Your exam board

OCR

Computer Science (A level NEA). OCR asks teachers to discuss each solution with the candidate, focusing on how they reached it, and says candidates must show where AI tools were used in development and how their own work grew from what the AI gave (OCR, AI in A Level Computer Science NEA, February 2026).

EPQ. OCR lists AI-generated production log entries, research, evaluation of sources and the written report as inappropriate uses of AI (OCR, AI in the Extended Project, February 2026).

English (A level NEA). OCR suggests asking students about their thoughts and research at the draft feedback stage (OCR, AI in English, February 2024).

History (A level NEA). OCR has added an AI section to its History A specification (OCR subject update 757501).

Design and Technology (NEA). OCR has added an AI section to its D&T specifications (OCR subject update 757501).

AQA

Computer Science (A level NEA). AQA’s candidate record form asks candidates to list any AI tools not acknowledged in the work (AQA 7517/C candidate record form).

EPQ. AQA’s 2026/27 production log tells students to hand in their prompts and the AI content they used, with a short explanation, so the teacher can check it (AQA 7993 candidate record form and production log, 2026/27).

History (A level NEA). In an AQA A level History case JCQ describes, the teacher’s worry began with sections that didn’t match the rest of the work or the candidates’ usual style (JCQ AI Use in Assessments, Appendix A). We found no History-specific AI guidance from AQA.

Not covered here: English and Design and Technology. JCQ’s rules apply, and check AQA’s own guidance for your specification.

Eduqas

Computer Science (A level NEA). Eduqas expects the teacher to discuss the prototype and its code with the candidate, and to note and investigate any case where the candidate can’t explain how their code works (Eduqas A level Computer Science specification, Component 3, supervision and authentication).

English (A level NEA). WJEC/Eduqas suggests keeping evidence of planning and drafts, and looking into work that is different from a candidate’s usual style or quality (WJEC/Eduqas, Managing AI in English NEA).

Design and Technology (NEA). Eduqas says teachers must identify where and how AI has been used, that AI-generated images don’t count as the candidate’s own design ideas, and that an AI-enhanced sketch is acceptable provided the original sketch is present (Eduqas, AI use in Design and Technology assessments).

Not covered here: EPQ and History. JCQ’s rules apply, and check Eduqas’s own guidance for your specification.

Pearson

History (A level NEA). Where teachers doubt a student’s coursework is their own, they must investigate and take appropriate action. Pearson points to the resource record sheet as evidence of the student’s research and choice of works (Pearson, A level History coursework AI guidance).

Design and Technology (NEA). Pearson requires a record of every use of AI in component 2, each with the tool, the date, a non-editable copy of the prompt and a short explanation (Pearson, AI in Design and Technology component 2, version 3.0).

Not covered here: Computer Science, EPQ and English. JCQ’s rules apply, and check Pearson’s own guidance for your specification.

Sources

We review this guide each September, when the JCQ documents change. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.