R0031/2026-03-27/C004 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — searched for 22% student AI submission statistic |
| Criteria applied consistently | Yes |
Notes: No source was attributed in the claim, requiring independent tracing.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Some concerns
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes |
| All results dispositioned | Yes |
| Source diversity achieved | Limited — only one survey with this exact figure found |
Notes: The 22% figure appears specific to BestColleges. Other surveys report different percentages.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | Yes |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: Consistent evaluation.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — other surveys show higher figures |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium confidence reflects single-survey basis |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes |
Notes: Fair treatment of the nuance between 22% AI use and "submitting AI-generated content."
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The investigation correctly identified the source and surfaced the nuance in what the 22% actually measures.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: Low. The nuance between "used AI" and "submitted AI content" was surfaced.
- No researcher profile provided: Cannot assess declared biases.