AI Detection in 2026: The Complete Guide
Understand how AI-writing signals are produced, what a score can and cannot establish, and how to review a result without turning it into a verdict.
Genutext field guides
Evidence-led guides to AI detection, plagiarism checking, false positives and fair academic-integrity review.
Connected decision areas
Start with Turnitin questions, false positives, score interpretation or a product comparison. Each page owns a distinct search need and links onward where the evidence overlaps.
Understand how AI-writing signals are produced, what a score can and cannot establish, and how to review a result without turning it into a verdict.
Separate authorship-pattern signals from source overlap, interpret both reports correctly, and apply the policy question neither automated check can answer.
Compare current vendor and independent evidence, understand false-positive risk and base rates, and judge whether an accuracy claim fits the text in front of you.
Understand what Turnitin can flag, what its percentage describes, and why a report cannot identify a ChatGPT account, prompt or policy breach.
Separate human revision, generative editing and AI paraphrasing, then focus on the policy and process evidence a detector cannot reconstruct.
Compare models without averaging unlike percentages, using a practical checklist for thresholds, eligible text, dates and score definitions.
Understand false positives, mixed fairness evidence and the process material that should be reviewed before any conclusion about a writer.
Assemble the process evidence that outweighs a percentage: version history, drafts, your research trail, and a documented conversation-ready account of your work.
Move from a disputed percentage to a specific allegation, balanced evidence checklist, neutral conversation and reasoned written outcome.
Map the common stages of a UK case while recognising that institutions differ on detector use, vivas, evidence and decision routes.
Distinguish text coverage, probability, confidence and product scores before translating a number into a real-world decision.
Understand the short-sample problem, mixed-document complexity and a practical way to choose clean, qualifying prose for review.
Use nine stop and caution rules to keep sentence labels, unsupported formats and high-stakes decisions within defensible limits.
Choose between occasional pay-as-you-go scans and a broader recurring toolkit using dated, verifiable product facts rather than accuracy claims.
Compare direct individual purchase with institution-licensed academic-integrity workflows without claiming equivalent databases or integrations.
The student-side anatomy of Turnitin's AI report: qualifying text, the asterisk band, the institution toggle and what the score cannot show.
Why no safe percentage exists, the behavioural thresholds that do, and the process evidence that protects students better than any number.
A calm procedural guide for accused students: preserve evidence, use your SU adviser, respond with process proof — template letter included.
Why score-matching is structurally impossible, what comparison tests found, and the pre-submission checks that actually help.
Vendor claims beside independent studies and UK universities' own conclusions — every figure dated and linked.
The Liang and HEPI evidence UK-side, the mechanism behind the bias, and practical protection for international students.
A concrete two-check workflow with a case table showing why AI detection and source matching each miss what the other finds.
The VLE, the plugin and the institutional toggle: what actually happens to a Moodle submission, with UK examples.
Per-scan versus per-document pricing, free-tier differences and privacy handling — every figure from the vendors' pages, dated.
Editorial standard
The guides distinguish signals from proof, label vendor evidence, date time-sensitive claims and explain what each automated report cannot decide.
Official documentation and peer-reviewed studies appear beside the claims they support.
Every workflow preserves privacy, context, human oversight and a fair chance to respond.
From reading to review
Try the short AI-only preview, or create an account for longer scans and optional source matching.