Your questions, our answers

Yes, with no credit card and no prior appointment required. You create an account from the "Try us" page, upload one of your exercises along with its marking scheme, then up to three submissions. You get exactly what the product actually delivers: a grade per criterion, the justification supporting it, and the teaching notes intended for the student.

Two things to know before you begin:

• it is your documents and your marking scheme that are used for the trial. There is no demo dataset, because a trial on fictional submissions would tell you nothing about your own subject;
• the trial account and everything it contains are deleted after 72 hours. If you wish to keep a result, export it beforehand.

No. CORRAICT runs in a browser: nothing to install on workstations, nothing to deploy on your servers, no network configuration required. A teacher can have their first submission marked on the very same day.

Your IT department therefore has nothing to do to get started. They will, however, have legitimate questions about hosting, data retention, and compliance: these are addressed on a dedicated page, designed to be printed and included in a dossier.

Automatic integration with your school management software is a separate matter, covered further on.

Yes, and that is what we recommend. There is no requirement to model the entire institution before getting started: one class, one subject and one teacher are enough.

What a single class teaches you, and what nothing else will: whether the proposed grading matches your standards of expectation, how much time a teacher actually spends reviewing, and whether your marking schemes are explicit enough to be applied as they stand.

What can wait until the wider rollout: the full structure — schools, campuses, streams, years, classes —, roles and their scopes, and student lists. This is configuration, not development.

It reads submissions and compares each answer against the criteria in the marking scheme submitted by the teacher. It proposes a grade for each criterion, the supporting justification, and a draft teaching note for the student. It is also used to design exercise instructions based on subject content.

What it never does, and what the product cannot be configured to allow:

• publishing a grade or comment without a teacher's approval;
• modifying the marking scheme, or departing from it on its own initiative;
• deciding on progression, repetition of a year, or academic guidance;
• comparing teachers with one another, or producing a measure of their activity.

And what can be verified without it is verified without it: in an online exam, numerical answers are marked by direct comparison with the teacher's solution, cell by cell, without any model being involved.

No. An assessment remains a proposal until a teacher has approved it, and there is no automatic mode — including at an institution's request.

This answers the question you are likely asking behind this one: what happens if a family raises a challenge. The grade communicated to the student has been set by an identified teacher, on a recorded date. Every point is linked to a criterion in the marking scheme and accompanied by the extract from the submission that supports it: the grade ceases to be a number to defend and becomes a line of reasoning to review. The history — initial proposal, teacher's amendment, final grade, timestamp — is retained and exportable.

A teacher can also reopen an already approved grade, with the amendment remaining on record.

No. Your institution's submissions, marking schemes and exercises are used solely for your institution: they do not feed any model, and are never mixed with those of another institution.

The analysis itself is handled by a specialist model provider that we do not host. Their processing terms, location and commitment to non-retention are set out in the contractual documentation we provide on request — the kind of commitment that is signed, not merely stated on a web page.

No. Your marking scheme is the authority, and it remains yours: we provide no standard marking scheme, no level framework, and no recommendations. The choice of what is assessed and the standard expected belongs to the teacher and the institution.

What does change, however: a marking scheme must be explicit enough to be applied by someone other than its author. A marking scheme that exists only in the mind of the person doing the marking works as long as they mark alone; it must be written down in order to be applied consistently. Many institutions discover at this point that their marking schemes were more implicit than they had realised — this is often the least expected benefit of the first few weeks.

The database and files — student submissions, instructions, solutions, course materials — are hosted in the European Union, in Ireland, encrypted in transit and at rest. The application pages are rendered in the same region, and the service that orchestrates marking runs in Frankfurt.

Analysis is entrusted to a model provider that we do not host ourselves; its location and commitments are set out in the contractual documentation.

We prefer to give these specific locations rather than write "European hosting", which means nothing without specifying what is hosted or where.

Twelve months after the end of the course — after which the submission is anonymised, not deleted.

What is erased: the uploaded file, the identity of the person who submitted it, the answers entered online, the feedback, and the comment for each criterion.

What remains: the grade, the scores per criterion, and the dates. These are figures that identify no one — and they are precisely what an examining board or a Qualiopi audit requires, over a cycle that runs well beyond one year.

Two points worth noting:

• the countdown starts from the end of the course, not from the hand-in date. A submission handed in during June will therefore not disappear mid-way through the following school year, nor before the examining board;
• this retention period is not simply a written policy: it is enforced by a scheduled task that runs every night. A retention period that is announced but never executed is a promise no one keeps.

Three other retention periods apply to ancillary data: the draft of an online submission (7 days), the composition record (30 days), and the connection log (12 months).

As your institution remains the data controller, a complete deletion before this term can be requested — and carried out.

Your institution is the data controller: it sets the purposes, manages its students, and makes its decisions. CORRAICT is a data processor within the meaning of the GDPR, and acts on your instructions.

In practice: you decide who has access to what, what is retained and what is deleted, and you are the one who responds to a student exercising their rights — the product gives you the means to do so.

The data processing agreement, the detailed list of sub-processors with their role and location, the legal bases for each processing activity, and the procedure in the event of a data breach are exchanged dated and signed: matters governed by contract are not published on a web page.

Yes, and we acknowledge this rather than look for ways around it. Assessing learning outcomes falls under Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. We draw the necessary consequences within the product: mandatory human oversight, no grade published without a teacher's approval, every point tied to a criterion with its justification, history retained and exportable.

Two distinctions matter for your compliance file, because they do not carry the same obligations. The following do not fall under this regime:

• the composition record, which logs timestamped browser events server-side — no model is involved, nothing is inferred;
• the generation of individual variants, which is a deterministic calculation based on the student's address and the bounds declared by the teacher.

And what we do not do at all: no monitoring of the student during the exam — no webcam, no emotion recognition, which Article 5 prohibits in educational institutions — and no generated-text recognition tool, whether integrated or developed in-house.

Yes, under indicator 11 — the one that requires you to show how you assess the achievement of objectives, and whose supporting evidence is usually scattered across submissions, spreadsheets, and teachers' inboxes.

What CORRAICT contributes: exercises and marking schemes aligned with the skills blocks you have declared, criterion-by-criterion justified marking for each submission, the teacher's named and timestamped approval, and exports that you attach as they are — not screenshots.

Two useful points to clarify before an inspection visit. CORRAICT is neither your reference framework, nor your examining panel, nor your certification body. And while these records are built up over the course of assessments, they can be exported on demand: there is no audit file that assembles itself.

Billing follows the volume of submissions marked, not the number of users: adding a teacher account costs nothing until they carry out marking.

Four plans:

• Teacher — for an individual teacher. Pay as you go, by submission pack, with no setup or commitment required.
• Silver — to get started at an institution: standard per-submission rate, configuration of the structure, roles, and marking schemes.
• Gold — for a group deploying across multiple sites: reduced per-submission rate, priority support, and team training.
• Platinum — for large groups: negotiated rate, bespoke configuration, dedicated account manager.

The three institution plans are subject to a quote, with pricing depending on volume. Full details are available on the Pricing page.

No, and that is not the intention. CORRAICT covers a specific moment — designing an assessment, having students sit it, marking it, returning the grade — and leaves the rest to your existing tools.

At present, exchanges with your information system are handled via file import and export: as input, the institution's structure, the teachers, and the students enrolled on a course; as output, approved grades in spreadsheet format, the file of submissions and their marked copies in PDF, teaching notes, and a summary of hours taught.

Automatic integration will be handled through our API, whose catalogue is published — but no endpoint is open yet. We would rather state this here than have you discover it during a scoping meeting.

They remain yours, and you can take them with you. Approved grades from a session can be exported as a spreadsheet; the file of submissions with their detailed marking and the teaching notes handed to students, as a PDF; the summary of teaching hours, as a spreadsheet and PDF. These are usable files, not screenshots.

These exports are done on request, assessment by assessment: there is currently no button that would empty the entire platform at once, and the API that would allow automated retrieval is not yet open.

The terms governing reversibility and erasure at the end of the contract are set out in the data processing agreement.