07 / Founding Assessment Assurance Pilot
One course team, one assignment, one confirmed rubric.
CoAcademic intends to validate the Learning Evidence Chain with a small number of course teams. This page describes that intent. It is not an announcement that a pilot has run, and enrolment is not open.
01Scope
What the founding pilot would cover
Founding pilot scope
The scope is deliberately narrow: one course team, one course, one assignment, one confirmed rubric, and the faculty who mark it.
- 01
Assessment resilience audit
A structured read of the existing assignment against its intended outcome, identifying where the outcome is carried and where it is exposed. No detection is used at any point.
- 02
AI-use policy and Learning Evidence Plan
A written AI-use rule for the task — restricted, limited, disclosed, or required — with the process evidence and explanation the assignment will require.
- 03
Rubric calibration
One confirmed rubric, calibrated with prior graded examples and faculty anchor work so band meaning is agreed before any submission is reviewed.
- 04
Bounded evidence-linked review
A limited set of submissions reviewed with each proposed criterion judgment shown alongside its excerpt, rubric language, rationale, and stated uncertainty.
- 05
Faculty-controlled decisions
Approvals, revisions, and rejections recorded per criterion, with release to students remaining an explicit faculty action.
- 06
End-of-pilot assurance and workflow report
The assurance record for the assignment, together with an honest account of where the workflow helped and where it did not.
02Commitments
What each side would owe the other
CoAcademic would provide
Setup with you
Rubric configuration and calibration done alongside faculty, not handed over as a task.
Named contact
A direct line to the people building the product, not a ticket queue.
Written data terms
Retention, access, and deletion agreed in writing before any submission is handled.
Honest limits
Clear statements of what the system cannot do, including where its proposals are unreliable.
A pilot department would provide
One real assessment
A rubric and assignment already in use, not a contrived test case.
Faculty time
Time from the people who mark, including the calibration conversation.
Institutional review
Whatever data, privacy, or ethics review your institution requires.
Candid feedback
Including the finding that the workflow does not fit your discipline.
03Register interest
Founding pilot applications opening soon
The form below is part of an unpublished preview build. It does not submit, store, or send anything, and no one receives a message when you use it. It stays in place, inert, until a monitored intake is connected.
A form that quietly discards what you type is worse than no form. Until CoAcademic can receive, store, and answer an application under agreed data terms, the field stays inert and says so.
The same rule applies across this site: no capability is presented as available until it exists, and no interaction is presented as working until it does.