One component of your setup. Not one more setup.
You are not buying an extra tool: you are plugging a component into an organisation that already exists, with its schools, its programmes, its roles and its obligations. This page describes what CORRAICT requires from your institution, and what it gives back.
Your scope
A group, its schools, its campuses and its programmes are described as they are. Each institution's data remains isolated.
Your roles
A role catalogue specific to your institution: you choose which areas each role can access, without going through us.
Your cost
Pricing per marked submission. No per-teacher licence, no minimum threshold before you can start.
Described as it is, not as software imagines it.
Seven levels of nesting, from group to course. An assessment belongs to a course, therefore to a class, therefore to a programme: this is what makes a grade usable beyond a teacher's own gradebook.
- Group
- School
- Campus
- Programme
- Year
- Class
- Course
A campus can host several schools
School and campus are not stacked one beneath the other: a school can span several sites, and a site can host several schools. Real groups work this way, and they are what shaped the model.
The course carries the academic year
The class is a structural label that does not duplicate from one cohort to the next. It is the course that carries the year and renews itself — assessments and submissions from the past year stay where they are.
Nothing to install, nothing to host.
CORRAICT runs in a browser. What needs to be set up comes down to three steps, none of which involve your IT department.
Describe the structure
Schools, campuses, programmes, years and classes can be entered from the administration panel, or created on the fly at the first assessment.
Open access
Teachers are invited by email. Students receive a submission link, or sign up via a link specific to your institution that you approve.
Run a first assessment
An assessment already marked by one of your teachers: that is the only honest way to compare before rolling out further.
What management sees, and what it will not see.
A tool that records marking could be used to measure teachers. This is not a matter of settings: what follows is what the product refuses to produce.
What management sees
- The institution's structure and the courses attached to it.
- The institution's assessments, their submissions and their marking, in read-only view.
- The platform access log and assessment activity.
- The institution's billable AI usage, by user and by period, exportable.
What it does not see
- No productivity indicators, no teacher rankings, no marking speed.
- Design work: what a teacher generates when preparing their exercises remains their own.
- Teachers' support requests, which belong solely to their author.
- Data from another institution, including within the same group.
Compliance, in brief
- European hosting and data isolation by institution.
- No submission, marking scheme, or exercise is used to train any model.
- Human approval required before any grade is returned to a student.
- Decision history retained and exportable for your audits.
You pay for marked submissions.
No per-teacher licence, no subscription tied to headcount.
An individual teacher buys submission packs and gets started without going through their institution. An institution chooses a plan whose per-submission rate decreases with volume, and which is differentiated by onboarding support, customer support and the level of integration with your information system.