Skip to content
EN
English 简体中文 soon 日本語 soon

Integrito

Writing process evidence

Visit official site

What Integrito is

Integrito takes a different approach from pure detectors. It generates activity reports from Google Docs recording editing time, revision stages and paste behaviour, and combines that with AI and plagiarism checks, so decisions rest on how a document was produced rather than on a single score.

What you can do with it

  • Review the writing process behind a submission
  • Give students a way to evidence originality
  • Combine timing data with AI signals
  • Standardise integrity processes in an institution
  • Reduce false accusations from detector scores alone

Who it is for

  • Teachers and academic integrity officers
  • Students wanting to evidence their own work
  • Institutions building fairer processes

What to watch out for

  • Continuous keystroke and paste monitoring is surveillance of students, and needs consent, clear policy and limits on retention
  • Writing-process data can be gamed, and atypical writing patterns are not evidence of cheating
  • Access to a student's document history is highly sensitive; restrict who sees it
  • Reports should inform a conversation, not replace one

Pros & cons

✓ What we like

  • Far fairer than detector-only decisions
  • Gives students evidence of originality
  • Combines several signals

! What to watch out for

  • Monitoring raises consent and privacy duties
  • Patterns can be atypical for benign reasons
  • Access must be tightly restricted

FAQ

Is this better than a detector alone?

Yes, because it looks at process evidence rather than only statistical signals.

What are the privacy concerns?

Keystroke and paste tracking needs consent, transparency and retention limits.

Can an unusual pattern prove cheating?

No. Atypical writing habits have many innocent explanations.

Last reviewed: 2026-09-19

More AI text detection tools

View all →

How we review