You wrote it. This is how you show the record of writing it — honestly, in order, and in a form the person reviewing your case can actually follow.
Washington State University Office of the Provost, memo to instructors, 11 February 2026. One institution's own case data — not a prediction about any other case.
A practical evidence and appeal system for students challenging an incorrect AI-writing accusation.
131 pages · 21 chapters · 14 worksheets · 12 templates
An AI-writing indicator produced a number. A conversation followed. And suddenly you are being asked to demonstrate something you never thought you would need to document.
You saved one file. You wrote in a single document, over a few sittings, like most people do. There is no folder of neatly dated drafts, because nobody writes that way.
You do not know what would even help. Version history? Metadata? Your notes? Everyone online says something different, and half of it is wrong.
Your Word file has no version history at all. Microsoft's own documentation says version history works only for files in OneDrive or SharePoint. A .docx on your laptop keeps nothing.
You used a grammar checker and now you cannot tell whether that is a problem, a defence, or something you should not mention at all.
English is your second language and your careful, formal, heavily-revised writing is being read as evidence rather than as the result of learning to write academically.
The advice you find is written by the wrong people. Detector companies selling you their tool, or bypass services selling you actual misconduct dressed up as a solution.
Your students' union is free but oversubscribed. An adviser with forty cases and one hour for yours can only do so much with a folder of untitled files.
You are frightened, on a deadline, and about to do something clumsy — open the file, tidy the folder, delete something — that will make this much worse.
Almost every student in this position has more evidence than they think, and no idea how to find it, grade it, or present it in a form somebody will actually read.
Most students walk into that gap with nothing — not because they have nothing, but because nobody told them what counts or how to organise it.
Turnitin's own published guidance states its model “may not always be accurate” and “should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student”, and that Turnitin “does not make a determination of misconduct”.
Several universities — among them Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, Pittsburgh, Waterloo and UBC — have publicly disabled or declined to enable AI detection, citing reliability and bias against non-native English writers.
At one US university's own review of its hearing-board cases involving AI allegations, a third ended in a finding of not responsible. What a student brings into that process matters.
None of this means a detector is always wrong, and this kit does not claim that. Detector reliability varies by product, by text length, by text type and by writer — which is exactly why a score should not be decisive on its own, and exactly why your own record of writing the thing is worth building properly.
An evidence-preservation and academic-integrity response kit — not an AI-detector bypass guide, and not a promise about your outcome.
Five steps, always in this order. Doing them out of sequence is how students accidentally damage their own case — you cannot organise evidence you have not preserved.
Every step works only with records that already exist. There is no step in which you improve the record.
Everything is editable, printable, and usable by a stressed student at 1am without any academic or legal vocabulary.
The main guide. 21 chapters across six parts, 11 diagrams and charts, five appendices, and the worked detail behind every worksheet and template.
The first hour, in order and timed. The ten things that matter most, starting with the one that becomes impossible if you leave it.
Twelve editable letters and statements: first reply, clarification request, evidence request, appeal letter, formal statement, reconsideration, post-meeting, ESL context, tool disclosure, draft evidence, oral request, post-hearing.
Nine conversations in words a student would actually use — requesting a meeting, asking what the concern is based on, presenting drafts, disagreeing respectfully, and the follow-up email.
Before, during and after. What to gather, what to establish in writing, how to answer, the three-part answer for what you cannot answer, and the deadline tracker.
Fifteen realistic questions. For each: what it is really asking, how to answer truthfully, evidence that may support it, and what not to do.
The multilingual-student module: how second-language academic writing actually works, what the research does and does not say, the worksheet, and the statement template.
Every item, where the original lives, what date it carries, and its grade — with the sixteen-place recovery sweep on its own tab and a grade summary.
The dated sequence with a confidence column on every row, a gap-review tab that calculates the days, and a deadline tracker that counts down.
The record you keep while you write — ninety seconds per session — plus the four-minute capture setup sheet for each new assignment.
Every tool, what for, which sections, what it changed, what the brief says, and what evidence you hold about that use. Four tool blocks and a declaration.
The seventeen-section structure, the printable cover sheet, a 26-row master index, and the case file control sheet.
Find your situation, start there, ignore the rest. Seven entry points depending on whether you were accused today, have a meeting, have a hearing, or nothing has happened yet.
For using an AI assistant on your own factual notes — to organise, structure, rehearse and check. Never to invent. With the rules of use, and what a good assistant refuses.
Two of the twenty, with illustrative example rows.
Illustrative example rows. Your own timeline will be your own.
Illustrative example rows.
The first hour is a timed, ten-step list. You do not have to decide anything.
Sixteen places to look for evidence — most students only ever check four.
Every template has placeholders, never invented facts. You fill in what is true.
Plain English throughout, written to be readable by international students.
Every recommendation refers to a genuine record. Nothing is created after the fact.
Designed to be what you bring to your students' union adviser, not a replacement for them.
The Quick-Start Guide sends you straight to your own starting chapter.
Free advice tells you what to do. Published solicitor rates start at hundreds per hour. This is the option in between.
One-time payment · instant download · 20 files · 7-day money-back guarantee
Get Instant Access — $12.99The prices shown against individual components are indicative of what comparable standalone digital products sell for; the kit is only sold as a complete bundle. $79 is the list price and $39 is the current price. Your students' union, students' association, ombudsperson's office and international student office are free, and you should use them — this kit is designed to be what you bring to those conversations, not a replacement for them.
Prompts for using an AI assistant on your own factual notes — to organise, summarise, rehearse and check your account for inconsistencies. With the rules of use, and a clear statement of what a good assistant refuses to do.
Google Docs, Word, Pages, Notion, Overleaf, Git, Scrivener, Grammarly Authorship and LMS submissions — where the history lives, and the real limits to state honestly rather than overclaim.
Twenty-three terms defined for someone meeting them for the first time, including students whose first language is not English. Balance of probabilities, contemporaneous, procedural irregularity, mitigation.
Every primary source the guide draws on — vendor documentation, nine named universities' published statements, and the peer-reviewed research — so you can check it yourself and cite it accurately.
Students searching for help with a wrong accusation land, over and over, on sites selling AI humanizers and detector-bypass subscriptions. Using one of those to escape a false accusation of misconduct means committing actual misconduct. That is the trap this product exists to pull people out of.
There is nothing in this kit that will help you:
What it does instead:
If you did use generative AI beyond what your brief permitted, this kit will not help you argue otherwise — and a chapter and a checklist are written for that situation instead, pointing at disclosure, mitigation and getting advice before you say anything.
This kit has just been released. Rather than publish testimonials from people who do not exist, these spaces are held for the first genuine reader reviews. Given what this product is about, that seemed like the only defensible choice.
If the kit helped you, we would like to hear how — and to publish it with your permission, in your own words.
We will not publish anything about a case outcome, because outcomes depend on things no product controls.
Reserved for students' union advisers and writing-centre staff who have used the binder structure with a student.
Open it, read the first hour, run the recovery sweep. If it is not what you expected, email sales@viralbydesign.co within 7 days of purchase and you get a full refund. No forms, no explanation required.
And it is almost always more complete than you believed when you started. Preserve it, reconstruct it honestly, organise it so somebody can read it, and be willing to talk about your own work. That is the whole method, and it is available to you today.
Get Instant Access — $12.99One-time payment · instant download · 20 files · 7-day money-back guarantee