Academic Integrity & AI Use: Where Your Line IsAcademic Integrity & AI Use. Nobody decides to cheat in one clean moment.
A line moves, a rung at a time, while the request stays exactly the same and only the pressure around it changes. This finds the rung - and tells you which pressure it was.
A survival reading, not a score out of thirty
Four situations recur four times each. An essay you did not write. A tool you did not declare. A file going round the group chat. A source you did not read. At every rung something is added: a deadline tomorrow, three classmates who already used it, a friend who helped you when you were ill, a marker who penalised the last person who was honest.
The measurement is not how many you got right. It is where you first moved. That is why the headline figure is a survival reading and not a total: adding up correct answers makes somebody who moved at the first push and somebody who held to the last rung look similar, and those are the two people this exists to tell apart. There is no percentile either, because only the low end of this scale carries meaning.
Your report is a heat strip. One band per situation, one cell per rung, each cell carrying a word - held, held and asked, edged, moved - and the pressure that was applied underneath it. The cell where the shade changes is the finding, and it is the only part you can actually do anything about. The edging count is printed separately, because a partial declaration or two paragraphs rather than the whole essay is where most people actually live, and nobody declares an edge.
What you walk away with
A survival figure from one to five, against the rung a typical student reaches, worked out from published choice rates rather than from a coin.
Sixteen cells, each labelled in words as well as shaded, with the exact pressure applied at every rung printed underneath it.
Edging is the commonest movement and the one nobody admits to. It is counted separately from crossing, because they are different things.
It can say that a pressure moved your line. It never certifies anything about you, and it is not a gate.
A single specific behaviour, chosen from the pressure that actually moved you rather than from a list.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample - your report is generated from your own responses.
Four rungs of rising pressure per situation. The cell where the shade changes is the finding.
Built for
- Students who want to know where their own line actually is before it is tested for real
- Universities, colleges and schools running integrity and AI-use conversations rather than detection drives
- Study-skills, foundation-year and access programmes that want a discussion instrument, not a warning
Find out which pressure moves your line
30 scored exercises - about 30 minutes - a full bespoke report with your survival reading, the heat strip across all four situations, held-edged-moved counts and one change to make.
₹349 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
Where a stated academic standard gives way when a deadline, a group, a consequence or a low chance of being checked is applied against it. Four areas are covered: whose work it is, saying what you used, when everyone else is doing it, and deadlines and shortcuts. It does not measure honesty as a character trait, anything you have actually done, your subject knowledge, or your writing ability.
No. It has no pass mark, it can be retaken, and it is written to be read by the person who sat it. Every reading in the report describes a situation rather than a person, and the report says in plain words that a one-tailed reading can say a pressure moved your line and can never certify anything about you. It is designed as a conversation starter for a tutorial or a workshop, and it should never be used as a gate or a screen.
By rung of first refusal. Each of the four situations runs across four rungs of rising pressure, and your score for that situation is the rung at which your line first moved - or five if it held throughout. It is deliberately not a sum, because a total would make refusing immediately and refusing at the last rung look similar. Edging over is counted separately from crossing, and both are shown.
Yes, and the report says so. This is the most fakeable format in the catalogue and it is published as one, which is why it carries no pass mark and is never a screen. What it does check is consistency: two situations wearing different clothes ask the same underlying question at least three items apart, and answering them differently is flagged. Read honestly it tells you something; read as a test it tells you nothing, and only you lose.
Rs 349 in India including GST, or US$3.99 elsewhere, one time, for one full sitting and report. It is priced at the student point deliberately, alongside our study-skills profile. Integrity modules are usually bundled into a course with no individual result, detection tools charge institutions per submission and tell you nothing about yourself, and free quizzes test whether you can define plagiarism. Institutions can use AssessAll credits at 12 credits per student.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures where a student's line sits on academic integrity, and how it moves as pressure rises, through original situational and selection items keyed to published constructs. Construct statement: it measures the point at which a person stops holding a stated academic standard when a deadline, a group, a consequence or a low chance of detection is applied against it. It does not measure honesty as a character trait, past conduct, subject knowledge, or writing ability, and it is not a screen - a result is a conversation, never a determination about a person. Declared response instruction: behavioural tendency throughout - every stem asks what the respondent would actually do. Item format: an ethics ratchet. Four situations recur across four rungs each, and the pressure rises at every rung while the request stays the same, so what is measured is the rung at which the line first moves rather than a total. Sources drawn on across the construct area: academic-integrity prevalence research and the finding that self-reported misconduct tracks opportunity and pressure far more than it tracks stated values; neutralisation and rationalisation theory, in which everyone does it and nobody checks are the two most common justifications recorded; social-proof and descriptive-norm research showing that perceived peer behaviour predicts conduct better than stated rules; deterrence research and the weak relationship between perceived detection risk and behaviour once a justification is available; work on unintentional plagiarism and close paraphrase, which is a skills failure rather than a dishonesty one; the disclosure literature on AI-assisted writing and the finding that declaration rates collapse where declaring is believed to be penalised; survival-analysis reasoning, which is why a rung of first refusal is reported rather than a sum; research on reciprocity as a pressure in peer relationships; citation-integrity work on abstract-only citation; and faking and social-desirability research, which is why this instrument is reported developmentally and never as a gate. All items are original works, no institution's policy is reproduced, no trademarked instrument is named, and no affiliation with any source is claimed. AssessAll original design.