Sanctions for AI use in 2025 exam diet coursework

Date published: 16/09/2025

I would like to make a request under FOISA. I am trying to understand the range of sanctions that were available to the SQA when a script was deemed to have been produced using AI in breach of the rules.

 

Please release the following information:

• What sanctions were available when a component script was deemed to have been produced using AI in breach of the rules for the 2025 exam diet?
• How did those responsible decide which sanction or sanctions to apply in each case? For example, was there a sliding scale where the more serious a breach of the rules was deemed to be, the larger the sanction that would be applied? If so, please provide a copy of the guidance that was used to make these judgements.

What sanctions were available when a component script was deemed to have been produced using AI in breach of the rules for the 2025 exam diet?

The information you have requested is publicly available and is therefore exempt information under section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). This information is contained within our published Malpractice: Information for Centres document which is publicly available on our website via this link: https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/files_ccc/malpractice-information-centres.pdf

Page 7 includes the definition of plagiarism which includes work taken from a generative AI source. Appendix 1 contains examples of penalties for candidate malpractice in SQA external assessments with suggested penalties for each malpractice category. 

How did those responsible decide which sanction or sanctions to apply in each case? For example, was there a sliding scale where the more serious a breach of the rules was deemed to be, the larger the sanction that would be applied? If so, please provide a copy of the guidance that was used to make these judgements.

The guidance for application of penalties is contained in the document linked at part 1. 

You requested “a copy of the guidance that was used” We have provided the relevant extracts from the document that fall within the scope of your request. The full document contains additional material that is not relevant to your request.

SQA malpractice panel members have a duty to act fairly and reasonably when deciding whether to take action in relation to certification. Panel members should also take into account all the relevant information available when deciding what, if any, action to take.

Where it is established that candidate malpractice has taken place, SQA’s malpractice panel will take appropriate action to:

• minimise the risk to the integrity of certification now and in the future
• maintain public confidence in the delivery and awarding of qualifications
• discourage others from doing likewise (SQA has a zero-tolerance policy to malpractice)
• ensure there has been no gain from compromising our standards
• minimise any disadvantage to candidates not found to be at fault, in dealing with invalid certification; and
• advise SQA Accreditation, Ofqual or Qualifications Wales of the outcome in the case of vocational qualifications that are subject to regulation

SQA’s decision to take further action following the outcome of the investigation will be based only on the relevant available evidence. Penalties may be applied at centre and/or individual level – where it is determined malpractice has been a result of the centre not following SQA published assessment conditions and specifications, these cases should be identified and referred to the Malpractice and Complaints Team to investigate the centre malpractice concern.

Consistency in decision-making is an important part of the work of a panel, but that does not mean that the penalty specified in the matrix is always appropriate. It is important to recognise that the penalty matrix in the appendix of the document Malpractice: Information for Centres should be used as a guide only. This does not set a precedent or bind SQA’s discretion in determining the appropriate sanction to apply in individual cases. The panel must consider the full circumstances to ensure the penalty awarded is proportionate to the type of candidate malpractice established.

The full circumstances should be taken into account so that the penalty awarded is proportional to the malpractice. All information relating to the case must be considered by the panel on an individual basis, however panel members must be objective in reaching a decision –candidate character references or invigilator opinions, for example, must not be taken into account. The decision to take no further action or to apply a penalty where malpractice has been confirmed should be recorded in writing with the rationale for the decision for that particular case.

Where the malpractice panel has made a finding of malpractice as a result of a candidate’s conduct or actions, the range of penalties can include, but is not limited to:

• a written warning
• revision of marks
• Cancellation of component
• cancellation of awards
• disqualification from future entries
• revocation of candidate certificates

All penalties must be justifiable, reasonable in their scale and consistent in their application. Unless a penalty is accompanied by a bar on future entry, all candidates penalised by loss of marks or cancellation may retake the qualifications affected in the next exam diet and/or available opportunity.

In collating the information for your request it was noticed that the list of penalties published within Malpractice: Information for Centres does not include ‘revocation of candidate certificates’ this will be updated and republished in due course.