Write the part a teacher needs first, which is not software

Docs/Teaching/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# For teachers — the part that is not software
+
+*[Español abajo.](#para-docentes--la-parte-que-no-es-software)*
+
+Six pieces of software have been built for this project. None of them is what a teacher needs first.
+
+What a teacher needs first is language for a syllabus, a page to hand students before anything goes
+wrong, and a procedure for the day a question becomes formal. None of that requires this tool, or
+any tool. It is here because the hardest part of AI writing in a classroom was never detection — it
+is what you do on the morning you suspect something, and there is nobody to ask.
+
+**Use these however you like. Copy them, edit them, put your institution's name on them, translate
+them. No licence, no attribution, no permission.** If they end up useful, we would like to hear how
+you changed them — an issue or a pull request improves them for the next person.
+
+| | | |
+|---|---|---|
+| **[Syllabus language](syllabus.en.md)** | [ES](syllabus.es.md) | Three policies at different strengths, ready to paste. Pick one — mixing them is how these fail. |
+| **[The student sheet](student-sheet.en.md)** | [ES](student-sheet.es.md) | One page, written for students: what a flag means, what it does not, and what protects them. |
+| **[Committee procedure](committee.en.md)** | [ES](committee.es.md) | For when it becomes formal, assuming the hardest case — the student denies it. |
+
+## The three things these documents agree on
+
+**A score is never the reason for a decision about a student.** Not at any threshold, not with any
+tool, not ours. A detector tells you where to read; it does not tell you what happened. Every
+document here is built so that a decision made by following it would survive the tool being removed
+from it entirely.
+
+**A conversation about the work settles what no software can.** Someone who wrote a text can say why
+it is that text — why this example, what was left out, what a phrase of theirs means. Someone who did
+not can restate it and cannot say why. That asymmetry is free, it takes ten minutes, and it is
+stronger than anything in this repository.
+
+**The burden does not go on the student.** Asking somebody to prove they wrote something reverses it
+onto the person with the least power in the room, and it lands hardest on students writing in a
+second language — the group every published study finds these tools flag most often. Ask them to talk
+about their work instead.
+
+## Why this project is entitled to say any of it
+
+Because it publishes how often it is wrong, which almost nothing in this category does:
+[`Docs/CALIBRATION.md`](../CALIBRATION.md). Ninety texts published before generative models existed,
+zero flagged at the recommended threshold, and the honest reading is the interval rather than the
+zero — under 4.1%.
+
+Read further down that page and it says something less flattering, which is the part that matters
+here: **no threshold is supported for English or Spanish on its own.** The corpus is too thin per
+language. A figure measured mostly in one language, quoted at a student writing in another, is the
+exact error these documents tell a committee not to make.
+
+Everything runs offline. No document, or any part of one, leaves the machine it is on.
+
+---
+
+# Para docentes — la parte que no es software
+
+Este proyecto ha construido seis piezas de software. Ninguna es lo que un docente necesita primero.
+
+Lo que un docente necesita primero es un texto para el programa de la asignatura, una página que
+entregar a los estudiantes antes de que pase nada, y un procedimiento para el día en que una duda se
+vuelve formal. Nada de eso requiere esta herramienta ni ninguna otra. Está aquí porque lo difícil de
+la escritura con IA en un aula nunca fue detectarla: es qué hacer la mañana en que uno sospecha algo
+y no tiene a quién preguntar.
+
+**Úselos como quiera. Cópielos, edítelos, póngales el nombre de su institución, tradúzcalos. Sin
+licencia, sin atribución, sin permiso.** Si le resultan útiles, nos gustaría saber cómo los cambió —
+una incidencia o un *pull request* los mejora para la próxima persona.
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **[Texto para el programa](syllabus.es.md)** | Tres políticas de distinta intensidad, listas para pegar. Elija una: mezclarlas es como fracasan. |
+| **[La hoja del estudiante](student-sheet.es.md)** | Una página escrita para el estudiante: qué significa que lo marquen, qué no, y qué lo protege. |
+| **[Procedimiento del comité](committee.es.md)** | Para cuando se vuelve formal, asumiendo el caso más difícil: el estudiante lo niega. |
+
+## Las tres cosas en que estos documentos coinciden
+
+**Una puntuación nunca es el motivo de una decisión sobre un estudiante.** Con ningún umbral, con
+ninguna herramienta, tampoco la nuestra. Un detector le dice dónde leer; no le dice qué pasó. Todos
+estos documentos están construidos para que una decisión tomada siguiéndolos sobreviva a eliminar la
+herramienta por completo.
+
+**Una conversación sobre el trabajo resuelve lo que ningún programa puede.** Quien escribió un texto
+puede decir por qué es ese texto: por qué ese ejemplo, qué dejó fuera, qué significa una expresión
+suya. Quien no lo escribió puede reformularlo y no puede decir por qué. Esa asimetría es gratis,
+lleva diez minutos, y es más fuerte que cualquier cosa de este repositorio.
+
+**La carga no recae sobre el estudiante.** Pedirle a alguien que demuestre que escribió algo invierte
+la carga sobre la persona con menos poder de la sala, y cae con más fuerza sobre quien escribe en una
+segunda lengua — el grupo que todos los estudios publicados encuentran marcado con más frecuencia por
+estas herramientas. Pídale que hable de su trabajo.
+
+## Por qué este proyecto puede permitirse decir todo esto
+
+Porque publica con qué frecuencia se equivoca, cosa que casi nadie hace en esta categoría:
+[`Docs/CALIBRATION.md`](../CALIBRATION.md). Noventa textos publicados antes de que existieran los
+modelos generativos, ninguno marcado en el umbral recomendado, y la lectura honesta es el intervalo y
+no el cero: por debajo del 4,1%.
+
+Siga leyendo esa página y dice algo menos halagador, que es justo lo que importa aquí: **ni el
+español ni el inglés respaldan por sí solos un umbral propio.** El corpus es demasiado delgado por
+idioma. Una cifra medida mayoritariamente en un idioma, citada frente a un estudiante que escribe en
+otro, es exactamente el error que estos documentos le piden a un comité que no cometa.
+
+Todo funciona sin conexión. Ningún documento, ni fragmento de él, sale del equipo donde está.

Docs/Teaching/committee.en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
+# A procedure for when the question becomes formal
+
+For an academic-integrity committee, a programme director, or a teacher who has to write something
+down. It assumes the hardest case: the student denies it.
+
+**The one rule the rest depends on:** a detector's output is never evidence of authorship, and no
+part of this procedure treats it as such. What follows is how to reach a defensible decision anyway.
+
+---
+
+## Sort what you have into three kinds
+
+Most flawed integrity cases collapse because these were mixed together in one paragraph.
+
+**1. Checkable facts.** Statements about the document that are true or false and that anyone can
+verify independently — this citation appears in the text and nowhere in the reference list; these two
+references carry the same DOI, so at most one of them is right; this reference is dated next year;
+this word contains a Cyrillic letter shaped like a Latin one.
+
+These do not depend on trusting any tool. **Anyone can check them by hand**, and a committee should:
+open the bibliography, look. They also carry no opinion about authorship — a real source can be
+produced in seconds, and that request is the whole test.
+
+**2. A pattern score.** An opinion about prose. Useful for deciding where to read carefully. **It is
+not evidence and it belongs in no finding.** If your written decision would be weaker with this
+paragraph removed, the decision is not sound.
+
+**3. What the student says about their own work.** In practice this decides the case, and the rest of
+this document is about getting it right.
+
+## Before the meeting
+
+**Verify the checkable facts yourself.** Look up the DOIs. Search the reference list. If a claimed
+contradiction does not hold when you check it by hand, drop it — one wrong item in a written finding
+is enough to void the whole document at appeal, and rightly.
+
+**Write down what specifically raised the question**, in one or two sentences a student could
+understand. If you cannot, there is no case yet. *"The score was high"* is not a reason. *"Four of
+the six sources cited do not appear in the bibliography, and two share a DOI"* is.
+
+**Check the tool's error rate for the language the work is written in.** This matters more than it
+sounds. This tool's corpus supports **no threshold for Spanish or English separately** — its best
+bounds are 5.6% and 13.3% by language, against an aggregate of 4.1%. Quoting an aggregate measured
+mostly on one language, at a student writing in another, is the exact error the tool's own
+documentation warns against. If you cite a figure in a finding, cite the one for that language, and
+if there is none, say there is none.
+
+**Decide who is in the room.** For the student: someone they choose. The power difference is the
+main source of unfair outcomes in these meetings, and it is cheap to reduce.
+
+## The meeting
+
+**Open by saying what it is.** *"This is a conversation about your assignment, not a decision. Nothing
+has been decided."* Say it even if you think it is obvious. It is not obvious from the other chair.
+
+**Ask about the work, not about the accusation.** Take two or three specific passages and ask:
+
+> *You wrote this phrase here — what does it mean, in your own words?*
+>
+> *Why this example and not another one?*
+>
+> *What did you leave out of this section, and why?*
+>
+> *Where did this source come from? What does it actually argue?*
+
+Someone who wrote a text can talk about the choices in it — not perfectly, not fluently, but they can
+say why. Someone who did not write it produces summary rather than intention: they can restate the
+paragraph and cannot say why it is that paragraph. **This asymmetry is the strongest instrument in the
+room, and it is free.**
+
+**Ask for the sources.** Not the citations, the sources. A real one arrives in seconds. An invented
+one cannot arrive at all, and the failure to produce it is a fact you may write down.
+
+**Ask for the drafts, but weigh their absence carefully.** Drafts are strong evidence when present
+and weak evidence when missing. Plenty of honest students write in one pass, in one file, and delete
+nothing because there was nothing to delete. Absence of drafts is not evidence of anything, and a
+policy that treats it as such punishes people for how they work.
+
+**Take the answers seriously when they explain things.** *"I write formally because that is how I was
+taught"* is a complete explanation for a high score, and it is a common one among students writing in
+a second language. A committee that has decided in advance what the meeting will conclude is not
+holding a meeting.
+
+## Writing the decision
+
+The document should be able to stand with the detector removed from it entirely. Test that literally:
+delete every sentence about the tool and read what is left. If a decision remains, write it. If
+nothing remains, there is no finding.
+
+**State the facts you verified yourself** and how you verified them. **State what the student said.**
+**State what you concluded and why.** If you mention the tool at all, say what it is and what it is
+not, in the finding itself:
+
+> A writing-analysis tool was used to decide which sections to examine. Its output is not evidence of
+> authorship and was not treated as such. It publishes a false-positive rate on writing known to be
+> human of under 4.1% overall, with no threshold supported for either language on its own — the
+> findings below rest on the source verification and the interview, not on that tool.
+
+A committee that writes this sentence is in a stronger position than one that omits it, because the
+sentence is going to be raised at appeal whether or not it appears.
+
+## Proportion
+
+Most of what these processes catch is not fabrication. It is a student who was overwhelmed, used a
+tool for a paragraph, and did not disclose it because nobody told them how. A first response of
+*rewrite it and tell me what you used* keeps a student in the room and produces a better writer. The
+severe outcomes should be reserved for what deserves them: invented sources, work bought or taken
+from another person, and denial maintained against facts the student cannot explain.
+
+---
+
+## What this project will not give you
+
+**A confidence percentage.** It does not have one, and neither does anyone else who prints one.
+
+**A verdict below its supported threshold.** The report prints the number and no interpretation.
+That is deliberate: a page that says *reads mostly human* above *treat this score as saying nothing*
+lets the reader keep whichever half they came in wanting.
+
+**A false-positive rate for your student population.** The published figure was measured on articles
+published before generative models existed — not on first-year coursework, not on your institution,
+not on your language mix. It is a floor, not a promise. Anyone quoting it as though it applied
+directly to a nineteen-year-old's essay is overstating it, including us.
+
+---
+
+Related: [`syllabus.en.md`](syllabus.en.md) — policy language before any of this is needed.
+[`student-sheet.en.md`](student-sheet.en.md) — what students should know beforehand.
+[`../CALIBRATION.md`](../CALIBRATION.md) — the error rate and its method.