Does proof of process prove that a student wrote every idea?

No. A process record can show what happened inside the captured writing environment. It cannot establish who formed an idea, whether someone helped off-platform or whether the signed-in account matches a person's legal identity.

Does Loam decide whether a student used AI?

No. Loam records and verifies parts of the writing process; it does not issue an AI-use or authorship verdict. The teacher reviews the work, the process record, the assessment conditions and the student's explanation before making a decision.

Can proof of process prevent every kind of misconduct?

No. A writing record cannot prevent retyping from another device, collusion, outside coaching or contract cheating. It can make activity inside the writing environment reviewable and give a teacher more contemporaneous evidence than a finished document alone.

Does process evidence replace teacher judgement?

No. Its purpose is to support human judgement. A teacher still needs to apply the task rules, consider legitimate explanations and accommodations, speak with the student when needed and document the basis for any academic-integrity decision.

Proof-of-process assessment for schools

What is proof-of-process assessment for schools?

Proof-of-process assessment gives teachers a reviewable record of how a student’s document developed, not just the finished submission. In Loam, that record includes edits, timing, revisions, checkpoints and replay. It can support a fair human judgement, but it cannot prove authorship, determine whether AI was used or eliminate misconduct.

Primary question: What is proof-of-process assessment, and what can it establish?
Search intent: Understand and evaluate a process-evidence approach for school writing.

Editorial responsibility: Difinity Pty Ltd, operator of Loam

Published 29 July 2026

Last verified 29 July 2026

What does “proof of process” actually mean?

Proof of process means preserving evidence of how a piece of work developed while it was being produced. The evidence is about the document and its recorded history: what changed, when it changed and whether the captured record still passes its integrity checks. It is a category description, not a legal standard or a guarantee about the person behind the work.

In assessment, the useful shift is from asking a system to classify finished prose to giving a teacher contemporaneous evidence they can inspect. Australia's national framework for generative AI in schools guides responsible and ethical use of AI across schools. It does not prescribe Loam or endorse any particular product.

What does Loam put in the writing-process record?

Loam records document changes made inside its editor, related timing, revision events, evidence checkpoints and the submission. Teachers can read the final document, inspect session signals and replay how the text developed. The product walkthrough shows the writing and review flow.

The technical record is hash-linked and server-countersigned so later changes can be detected. Loam's verifier and evidence-chain explanation describe those checks and the information Loam deliberately does not collect.

Claim boundary

What can the record show, and what can it not prove?

Can show

How the captured document changed inside Loam, including revisions and the order of recorded edits.
Timing and session events that Loam recorded, including blocked-paste events and checkpoints.
Whether the linked record, server checkpoints and rebuilt final document pass Loam's verification checks.
Which parts of the process may deserve a teacher's closer review or a conversation with the student.

Cannot prove

That a particular person originated every word, idea, source or argument.
That no help, AI tool, second device, collusion or coaching existed outside the Loam editor.
That the signed-in account name establishes a person's legal identity.
That academic misconduct occurred, or what consequence a school should apply.

The boundary is deliberate: verification establishes facts about the captured evidence record. Inferences about a student still require context, policy, procedural fairness and human judgement.

How is process evidence different from an AI detector?

Process evidence records events while work develops; an AI detector analyses finished text and estimates whether its patterns resemble generated text. The two answer different questions. A process record can show captured activity, but it still cannot see activity outside its environment or decide who originated an idea.

TEQSA's take-home assessment guidance discusses verifiable version history and process-writing tools, and says an AI score alone is insufficient for an allegation. That is higher-education guidance rather than a rule for schools, but its evidence boundary is useful: no single signal should become an automatic verdict.

How should a teacher use process evidence fairly?

Start with the assessment conditions, then use the record to ask better questions rather than to hunt for a predetermined answer. A proportionate review can follow this sequence:

01Confirm what assistance, collaboration, research and AI use the task allowed.
02Read the final work before treating any process signal as meaningful.
03Inspect only the parts of the timeline or replay relevant to the concern.
04Ask the student to explain the work and consider accommodations or technical gaps.
05Weigh the process record with other relevant evidence and document the human decision.

Can a school inspect the evidence model before adopting Loam?

Yes. The public browser-based verifier includes a synthetic demonstration PDF and performs supported checks locally in the browser. The sample is labelled as a demonstration; it is not a real student record or a production authorship proof.

Privacy and IT reviewers can also inspect the Privacy Policy, the subprocessor list and the Data Processing Agreement before a school conversation.

Source ledger

Which primary sources support this page?

01
Loam — Verify a Loam document locally
Product-specific primary source for the evidence chain, local verifier, information captured and explicit proof limits. Last checked 29 July 2026.
02
Loam — How the writing and review flow works
Product-specific primary source for the editor, replay, teacher review and privacy boundary. Last checked 29 July 2026.
03
TEQSA — Detecting AI-generated text and securing take-home assessment
Australian higher-education guidance on verifiable version history, process-writing tools and why an AI score is insufficient by itself. Updated 8 May 2026. TEQSA does not endorse Loam.
04
Australian Department of Education — Framework for Generative AI in Schools
National framework for responsible and ethical use of generative AI in Australian schools. Last modified 17 June 2025.
05
NIST — FIPS 180-4 Secure Hash Standard
Primary technical standard for the SHA-2 family, which includes SHA-256. This standard explains the hash function, not Loam's complete evidence design.

Where should you go next?

Test every claim boundaryA claim-by-claim guide to what a writing record can establish and where inference begins.Compare process evidence with AI detectionSee why a captured writing record and a model inference answer different questions.Compare Google Docs version historyUnderstand what familiar document history can show and where its evidentiary limits begin.Inspect the verifierTry the synthetic demonstration and read the evidence chain end to end.Plan a school reviewSee governance, privacy, rollout and procurement information for schools.Browse all resourcesFind answer-led guides for assessment, process evidence and human review.