Answer the allegation that was actually made
Record the case reference, response deadline, work title and supplied documents. Determine whether the letter identifies passages, sources and the type of concern. If comparison material is missing, describe exactly what cannot be matched. Do not draft a defence to a broader accusation merely because it might arise later.
Open by acknowledging receipt and defining the response. A short overview may identify the main categories, but must not conceal difficult passages or introduce unsupported claims.
Freeze the reference material before explaining it
Keep the allegation letter, submitted work, similarity report and attachments unchanged. Record filenames and receipt details. Build your response from copies. Collect genuine draft files, bibliography exports, supervision comments, research notes and submission receipts without editing them to create a cleaner narrative. A record generated after the allegation must be described with its true creation date.
Create a passage register and assign stable IDs. Record the page and paragraph in the submitted file as well as the report’s location, because pagination may differ. Identify the candidate source and its precise location where available. This preliminary mapping prevents an explanation for one paragraph being mistaken for an answer to another.
Examine wording, attribution and source use separately
For each item, mark the words said to correspond and inspect the surrounding argument. Is it a quotation, close paraphrase, technical label, bibliographic entry, common formula or thematic similarity? Is a source named nearby? Does the submitted version contain quotation marks, a page reference or a footnote? Describe these observable features before arguing about their significance.
A source in the bibliography does not necessarily resolve missing attribution in a paragraph. Conversely, similarity alone does not tell you intention, the route by which wording entered the document or the academic significance of the passage. If you identify a citation error, describe it accurately without automatically accepting a wider characterisation that the evidence has not established.
Detector outputs require similar restraint. Different systems can classify the same input differently and may use incompatible scales. The guide on disagreeing AI detectors provides fields for recording that uncertainty. A plagiarism-check foundation guide can help locate possible source overlap, but it cannot decide responsibility or procedure.
Describe what every supporting record can and cannot show
Evidence is useful when it bears on a particular proposition. A dated outline may show that a chapter structure existed at that point. It does not establish the origin of every later sentence. A supervisor’s comment may link feedback to a draft; it does not necessarily approve source practice throughout a revised submission. File metadata may support identification or timing while remaining editable and context-dependent.
Order attachments by function: submitted package, contemporaneous drafts, literature and search records, feedback, version exports, data or analysis records. Give each an ID, filename, date, provenance and short relevance note. If a large archive contains personal data or third-party confidential material, do not disclose it wholesale. Ask about an appropriate secure route and supply an inventory where that meets the immediate need.
Where reconstruction is impossible, preserve the gap. “I cannot establish from the retained records how this phrase entered the draft” is more credible than inventing a source path. You can still identify the textual issue and explain what you did to examine it. A transparent limitation enables a decision-maker to distinguish absence of evidence from a fabricated explanation.
Use measured language throughout
Use first person for your actions and recollection. Use institutional role titles rather than hostile descriptions. Quote correspondence sparingly and accurately. Claims about bias, intention or bad faith require their own basis and normally distract from correcting a passage map. A technical report being incomplete does not, by itself, prove that the entire concern is invalid.
An admission should be just as precise as a denial. You can acknowledge that quotation marks are absent at F-03 without purporting to decide the sanction or every other passage. If you dispute a comparison, explain whether the source text, edition, page or actual wording differs. Link every assertion to the corresponding record or mark it as recollection.
If the institution produced a hearing note, audit it separately using the hearing-record correction worksheet. Do not silently fold later arguments into what you claim was said at that earlier meeting.
Assemble a response that survives a cold read
- Check reference, deadline and title against the notice.
- Give every alleged passage one primary response location.
- Separate observation, recollection, interpretation and request.
- Match every attachment ID to the schedule.
- State the limits of technical records.
- Remove irrelevant personal information.
- Preserve the submitted response and transmission receipt.
Ask a new reader to locate the allegation, answer and support for two sample items. Add pinpoint references wherever they must guess.
The examination-procedures hub places this template alongside record-preservation tasks. Structure cannot guarantee an outcome. It keeps evidence, concessions, disputes and unanswered questions visible.