falsely accused of using AI

Have your drafts ready to explain your process.

Falsely accused of using AI — Have your drafts ready to explain your process. Keep your drafts and notes, read the school’s policy, and ask what evidence it will consider.

Start with the process, not another score.

Read the school’s policy and appeal procedure. Ask what the allegation and evidence are.
Keep your existing drafts, planning notes and version history. Ask the school to consider them.
Explain your process honestly. A time receipt can date a saved draft; it cannot establish that no AI was used.

Read the OIA case summary

Try a file locally

Your photos and files stay on your device, so keep them.

EXAMPLE

Writing process record

1 Nov 2026

Authority time: 14:02 UTC · example
Bitcoin block time: 14:10 UTC · example
Last checked: 15:02 UTC · example

✓ Dated◆ Permanent

Now keep it safe: three things

Keep your photos and files unedited. The receipt only matches the originals. Put them in an album such as “My records”.
Save this receipt to your camera roll.
Keep the receipt file too. The image is a handy copy; checking needs the file.
Email it to yourself.Email it to myself
Your mail app opens a draft. Attach your receipt image and receipt file. Don’t attach your photos or documents. Timevolt does not send it or know whether it was sent.

Your record, one step at a time.

Your photos and files stay on your device, so keep them.

Local preview: files are fingerprinted here. Notes and progress stay in this browser. Keep downloaded copies; browser storage is not a backup.

1. Drafts0 items

How?

Add the exact original files for this part of the record. Keep them unchanged; a different export or edit has a different fingerprint.

Add files

Add link and screenshots

Link to recordAdd screenshots

The link is recorded, not fetched or verified.

2. Write the notes down0 items

How?

Write what you remember in your own words. The saved time uses your device’s clock.

How to keep notes that hold up

Write it down

New note

By making a receipt you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy. The Bitcoin record is permanent.

Photo of note

By making a receipt you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy. The Bitcoin record is permanent.

How to keep notes that hold up

Write notes as soon as you can. Keep the original account rather than replacing it later; the venue decides what weight it gets.

Write it down straight away, on paper or in the box on a step.
Put the date, time and place at the top, and who you spoke to.
Use their words where you can; separate what you saw from what you were told.
Sign or initial a paper note, photograph it and add the photo.
Never edit an old note. Add a new dated entry when something changes. A device save time is not independent time evidence or proof of event order.

Writing process record

01 · Keep the exact files

Export successive drafts with notes and version-history records. Keep each exact file, rather than overwriting the last copy.

Records to keep: Drafts · Notes

Writing process record

02 · Date the file’s code

Your device fingerprints the selected file or manifest. Dated follows an independent timestamp; Permanent follows Bitcoin anchoring.

An independent time, tied to the exact bytes.

Writing process record

03 · Keep the evidence

If questioned, compare your copies and receipts alongside the school’s appeal process and its own version-history evidence.

Keep the originals too. A changed or compressed copy has a different fingerprint.

Try a file. It stays here.

Make a test receipt on this device.

By making a receipt you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy. The Bitcoin record is permanent.

Choose a file

or drop a file here

Real cases: why the saved copy matters.

Real cases where dated records mattered. We don’t claim a time receipt would have changed the result.

England and Wales · 2025

Essay plans deserve a proper review

A student accused of AI use gave the school essay plans that it did not fully address. The school also kept some comparison records from the student. The outside reviewer upheld the complaint about how the school handled the case.

An ombudsman complaint summary; the outcome addresses the handling of the accusation.

Summarized on Oct 29, 2026

Read the case summary ›

England and Wales · 2025

Draft notes can support the school's findings

A student challenged a school's finding of AI cheating. Staff had checked drafts and responses, including an oral test where the student disclosed AI use. The outside reviewer rejected the complaint about how the school handled the case.

This source is an ombudsman case summary, rather than the full underlying university record.

Summarized on Oct 29, 2026

Read the case summary ›

New York, US · 2026

AI flags need checking against other evidence

A school punished a student after a tool flagged a paper as AI-written. A news report says staff ignored two other checks, plus files and tutors they could have checked. It says a court threw out the penalty and cleared the student's record.

Summarized on Oct 29, 2026

Read the report ›

US · 2024

Work history can support a school's concerns

A student asked a court to pause school penalties over AI text. A report says file history showed pasted blocks and much less editing time than peers. The judge refused the early request; the wider case stayed open.

This account comes from an article that does not name the court.

Summarized on Oct 29, 2026

Read the report ›

Related cases

What courts, schemes and regulators say.

Positions below refer to the cited rule or record type, not endorsement of Timevolt. This service is not represented as an eIDAS qualified timestamp provider. A non-qualified timestamp does not receive the qualified timestamp presumption.

Unclear · England and Wales (UK)

OIA (higher education ombudsman)

Case summaries show the OIA expects providers to consider the student's planning materials and drafts, not only a detector report, and to be mindful of detector limits (e.g. for international or disabled students).

Drafts and notes are treated as relevant evidence; no mention of cryptographic timestamps. Only case summaries read, not a general rule.

Source summary as of 2026-10-28. Check the current source and applicable local rules.

Read the source

Silent · Global (vendor guidance)

Turnitin AI writing detection

Turnitin says the AI score should start a conversation with the student and that highlighted areas should be viewed in totality; scores under 20% are flagged as less reliable.

Vendor guidance says nothing about student-supplied timestamps. Figures are vendor-reported and from 2023.

Source summary as of 2026-10-28. Check the current source and applicable local rules.

Read the source

Needs something else · Australia

Australian Catholic University (reported by ABC and others)

ABC reports ACU academic integrity officers asked accused students for handwritten and typed notes and internet search histories (practice since stopped), and ACU abandoned the Turnitin AI tool in March 2025.

Secondary press accounts only; shows institutions ask for process records but names no timestamp standard.

Source summary as of 2026-10-28. Check the current source and applicable local rules.

Read the source

Unclear · Universities generally

Grammarly Authorship as used by universities

A UNE academic integrity blog post describes Grammarly Authorship Replay as a tool students could use to show how they wrote an assessment; it does not state a university policy.

Shows schools are open to process-tracking tools; no stated rule on third-party time receipts.

Source summary as of 2026-10-28. Check the current source and applicable local rules.

Read the source

Other ways to do this

Prices change. Check each provider’s site for current prices and service details.

Grammarly Authorship
Tracks how text was produced in its editor, with replay and color-coded origin labels.
Visit site
Google Docs / Word version history
Keeps document edit history within the provider's account.
Visit site
GPTZero (detector plus writing-replay guidance)
Provides AI-text detection and writing-process guidance.
Visit site
Draftback (Chrome extension)
Replays Google Docs revision history.
Visit site
Saving dated draft copies / emailing yourself
Keeps separate document versions and email copies.
Visit site

Related workflows.

Proves / Doesn’t prove

Proves

A completed time receipt shows that the exact selected file existed by the independently witnessed time. You can check whether a later copy has the same bytes. It does not establish creation time, authorship, identity, event order, location or the truth of the contents.

Doesn’t prove

It does not prove you typed the words, that no AI was used, or that the final essay is yours; a school can still weigh it as one piece of evidence among others.

This does not establish that no AI was used. Retyped AI text can be dated too, and process records can also count against a student.

These are the bounds of a completed proof. The local tester does not establish any time. The chosen court, scheme or regulator decides what to accept.

Questions, answered plainly.

Your file stays on your device. During normal receipt creation, your device sends a randomized code made from its fingerprint, plus encrypted recovery data. It doesn't send the plain fingerprint or the random value that opens the code. Keep the original file and the complete receipt for checking. Privacy Policy.

Will a time receipt prove I didn't use AI?

No. It shows that the exact files existed by the receipt date. It cannot identify who typed them or whether AI helped. Keep successive drafts and native version history to explain your process; receipts alone do not prove writing order.

Do I upload my essay?

My school already has Google Docs version history. Why do I need this?

Version history is useful but sits inside one platform and one account, and it is easy to lose or dispute. A time receipt is dated by an independent timestamp authority and then anchored in Bitcoin, so it does not depend on your school or your document app.