About

Fifty notes on remote proctoring, organised around a single distinction: a flag is a moment for review, not a finding of misconduct.

Who this is for

People deciding whether to deploy proctoring, running a programme already, writing or revising policy, handling a challenge, or looking for an alternative.

The position

Proctoring detects anomalies, not cheating. The gap between them is filled by a human process that institutions under-design and under-resource, and that process is what is actually being bought.

The technology has legitimate uses. High-stakes licensing, professional certification, distributed cohorts with no supervised option. Those cases are real and narrower than the market implies, and there is a note about exactly when it is the right answer.

And the burden falls unevenly. Six groups are flagged more often for reasons unrelated to conduct, each correlating with disadvantage that already exists. This is measurable and most institutions have not measured it.

What is deliberately absent

How to circumvent proctoring. Not the audience and not useful.

Product names and supplier comparisons. The useful distinctions are between approaches and between review processes, not between vendors.

Detection accuracy figures. The numbers in circulation come from interested parties and rarely state a base rate. Where the evidence is good, the notes say so; where it is thin, they say that too.

About the illustrations

The patterns on section pages are generated, abstract and depict nothing. Each is built on the same arithmetic the collection describes: many marks, some circled, very few that matter.

About this domain

This address previously belonged to a manufacturer of electromagnetic test instruments.

None of its material is here, nothing can be ordered, and no technical specification on this site relates to any instrument. If you were looking for the manufacturer, search for it by name.