A printable one-pager for exams officers and teaching staff. The wording below is quoted directly from the full guide, What JCQ Actually Says About AI Detection in Coursework.
The short answer
JCQ does not require, approve or endorse any AI detector, ours included. Its guidance treats a detector result as one piece of evidence for a judgement the teacher makes, never as proof: teachers must not use AI as the sole marker, and must confirm the work is the student's own before accepting it. Misuse turns on whether AI use was acknowledged, not on a score. Whether a case gets reported depends on the declaration of authenticity: unsigned, the centre handles it internally under its own policy; signed, the case must be reported to the awarding organisation.
Work through this once a year with the malpractice policy open, and once per cohort with the teaching team.
Check your malpractice policy names AI. JCQ requires a policy covering "what it is, when it may be used and how it should be acknowledged, the risks of using AI, what AI misuse is and how this will be treated as malpractice". If AI appears nowhere in your policy document, that is the first gap to close.
Write down how teachers will authenticate work. The guidance asks centres to review the policy to acknowledge "how teachers will authenticate work". A named method beats an assumption when a case is challenged.
Put referencing rules in writing, including AI. The policy needs "clear guidance on how students must reference appropriately (including websites)" and separately on how students acknowledge AI use.
Issue the Information for Candidates document and check it landed. Centres must ensure each student "is issued with a copy of, and understands" it, which means a register entry, not a pile on a desk.
Reinforce what the declaration means. JCQ asks centres to reinforce "the significance of their declaration where they confirm the work they submit is their own, the consequences of a false declaration". A two minute explanation before signing is worth more than a paragraph in a handbook.
Tell students the evidence rule before they start, not after. Name of the AI tool, date generated, a non-editable copy of the prompts and output, and a short note on how it was used, submitted with the work. Students who learn this after the deadline cannot comply retrospectively.
Brief staff on AI tools and detection tools. Centres must "Ensure teachers and assessors are familiar with AI tools, their risks and AI detection tools". Familiarity includes knowing the failure modes, not just the login.
Lock down devices where access is prohibited. Staff should know "how to disable improper internet/AI access where this is prohibited", and JCQ flags exam laptops specifically.
Design tasks that are harder to generate. The guidance suggests assignments that are "topical, current and specific, and require the creation of content which is less likely to be accessible to AI models trained using historic data".
Build in supervised checkpoints. Allocate time for portions of work in class under direct supervision, and "Examine intermediate stages in the production of work" so the final piece is a visible continuation of earlier drafts.
Plan for private candidates separately. JCQ says verifying their work "can be more challenging", and asks centres to decide before accepting the entry what supervision, portfolio review or discussion will make authentication possible.
Compare against previous work first, before any tool. JCQ's list of what to look at is spelling and punctuation, grammatical usage, writing style and tone, vocabulary, complexity and coherency, general understanding and working level, and the mode of production.
Use the indicator list as prompts, not verdicts. It includes "A default use of American spelling, currency, terms and other localisations", references that cannot be verified, a lack of local or topical knowledge, and "Overly verbose or hyperbolic language that may not be in keeping with the candidate's usual style". Each one has innocent explanations, so treat them as questions to ask.
If you use a detector, use it as one input and record it as one input. Note what the tool returned, what the tool is known to miss, and what else you weighed. If the concern is serious, JCQ suggests a second tool as an additional source of evidence.
Have the conversation. A short verbal discussion about the work, which JCQ lists as a preventive measure, is usually the most informative thing you can do and the easiest to record fairly.
Check whether you are allowed to paste the work into that tool at all. Student work is personal data and your centre is the controller, so retention and model training terms matter before the scan, not after. We cover the questions to ask a supplier in what happens to text you paste into an AI detector.
Apply the declaration test before escalating. Not signed, handle it internally under your policy and record it. Signed, report it to the awarding organisation.
Keep records where AI use affected the mark. JCQ asks for clear records where acknowledged AI use has influenced marks, because that is what protects you at moderation or internal appeal.
Source
Joint Council for Qualifications, AI Use in Assessments: Your role in protecting the integrity of qualifications, published 26 April 2023, revision two 30 April 2025. All quotations above are from this document, including the extracts it reproduces from the Instructions for Conducting Coursework in Appendix C.
From isitai.co.uk/blog/what-jcq-says-about-ai-detection-in-coursework — Is It AI?, isitai.co.uk