Aboli Karnik I want to add my thoughts to Gailene's response. As a former educator myself, one of the things we're proud of at Turnitin is that we have a whole swatch of former educators built in across many different functions at the company, including on our AI team. I point that out because one of our grounding philosophies is to respect educators for their professional judgment and discretion. It is never our intention to supplant the educator; it is only ever our intent to supplement with the data points and insights our tools can provide. 

Another area of your original question worth considering is HOW educators and students can demonstrate that the work is the student's original work. As a former English teacher, I believe that some of the core tenets of writing pedagogy remain true, and one of those is around the writing process. Using a process approach to writing assignments helps to demonstrate how the work takes shape over time, where educators have some visibility into the choices the student writer has made along the way, including whether they did/did not use generative AI and how they used it if they did. My team of pedagogical experts has been saying this since even before Turnitin's AI detector launched, and we're still saying it. Putting that kind of visibility together with a detector is a way of bringing together multiple data points.

With the release of Turnitin Clarity in 2025, there's now even more visibility possible as Turnitin Clarity can make the writing process even more transparent. We often talk about how Turnitin Clarity helps educators, but in this case, it helps students as well. Students told us that they feared not being able to prove or document their integrity, and tools like Turnitin Clarity give them an actual record of how their writing took shape. We like to say that its use can help to rebuild any erosion of trust between educator and student.