Critical review offers questions for preserving learner judgment, not a validated dependency scale

Academic leaders may struggle to distinguish legitimate assistance from work that conceals missing understanding. Convene faculty, students, disability services, librarians and assessment leads. Ask which learning outcomes require an explanation, whether students can challenge automated feedback and which current practices already support that skill. A bounded engagement could review one course's AI-assisted assessment and develop a pilot rubric. The value hypothesis is clearer and more defensible assessment, to be tested locally. This conceptual review is a discussion aid rather than evidence of institutional harm. Do not claim that high usage identifies dependence, that a new rubric is validated, or that restricting tools necessarily improves equity.

Fit the proposal to a course workflow in which students can inspect evidence and record a reasoned response to feedback. Prerequisites include accessible source materials, clear permissions and faculty-approved examples. Build a small test collection containing unsupported claims, conflicting sources and ambiguous feedback; verify that citations resolve and access controls hold.

Proposed proof of value

students can challenge a wrong suggestion and complete a separate explanation task using agreed accommodations. Record unresolved cases without creating a permanent behavioral profile. The review cannot select a model or prove interface changes cause learning gains. Developer copilots may be examined with the same task-specific questions, but production agents require separate assurance.

An assessment lead should own the pilot, with faculty judging disciplinary reasoning and disability staff reviewing equivalent participation. Map permitted assistance, prepare student examples and train markers before the assignment opens. Dependencies include moderation time, approved data handling and a clear appeal route.

Proposed acceptance criteria

all sampled marks can be explained against published criteria; students can access a challenge route; agreed accommodations work; and a follow-up task is reported with missing responses. These are proposed service and evaluation gates, not observed effects. Risks include inconsistent marking, extra student burden and turning a conceptual framework into an unsupported misconduct detector. Review feedback before extending the approach.