News

Newsletter #2

No items found.

Insights Newsletter #1

False Positives Are the Hidden Cost of AI Proctoring — And the Damage Is Real

AI proctoring systems often produce false positives by misinterpreting human behavior, leading to unjust accusations of cheating. These systems should not make definitive judgments without human review; instead, assessments should focus on maintaining valid testing conditions and accommodating learners' needs.

The System Says They're Trained — But No One Actually Knows

A report reveals over 750 construction workers in Australia hold credentials without verified training, highlighting a regulatory failure where responsibility is shifted among regulators, employers, and training organizations. The lack of proper verification poses serious safety risks, emphasizing the need for systems that ensure actual learning and accountability to prevent preventable accidents.

Verified, Observed, Accountable: What All High-Risk Systems Need

High-risk training must ensure verified identity and active participation to prevent workplace fatalities. Lessons from blood donation protocols highlight the need for integrity in training systems to avoid ineffective certifications and enhance safety.

When Training Can’t Be Verified, It May Be a Crime — and Employers Are Accountable

Employers are accountable for ensuring training providers verify identity and participation; failure to do so can lead to criminal liability for false credentials. Unverified training may not reflect actual participation, risking compliance and safety in high-risk industries. It's crucial to confirm training integrity with regulators to maintain a safe workplace.

Previous Insights

Cognisense Is Live — For the Pros Who’ve Seen It All, and Want Better

Built for risk, ops, and compliance professionals who’ve been through the fire — and are ready to stop playing defense.

Choosing the Right Proctoring Method: A Standards-Based Approach

Ensuring the integrity of workplace health and safety training is essential for compliance, risk mitigation, and operational efficiency. As organizations evaluate proctoring solutions, they often face a choice between live online proctoring, AI-assisted monitoring, and record-and-review methods. While each approach has its advantages and limitations, the decision should not be based on subjective preferences or industry trends. Instead, organizations should focus on defining the desired outcomes and selecting tools that align with established training integrity standards, such as ANSI/ASSP Z490.1.

False Positives Are the Hidden Cost of AI Proctoring — And the Damage Is Real

AI proctoring systems often produce false positives by misinterpreting human behavior, leading to unjust accusations of cheating. These systems should not make definitive judgments without human review; instead, assessments should focus on maintaining valid testing conditions and accommodating learners' needs.

Insights

Newsletter #2

Insights Newsletter #1

False Positives Are the Hidden Cost of AI Proctoring — And the Damage Is Real

The System Says They're Trained — But No One Actually Knows

Verified, Observed, Accountable: What All High-Risk Systems Need

When Training Can’t Be Verified, It May Be a Crime — and Employers Are Accountable

Previous Insights

Cognisense Is Live — For the Pros Who’ve Seen It All, and Want Better

Choosing the Right Proctoring Method: A Standards-Based Approach

False Positives Are the Hidden Cost of AI Proctoring — And the Damage Is Real

Read more: