Use of artificial intelligence during a written assessment

Strict adherence to assessment instructions is critical to maintaining fairness and integrity in any appointment process. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools, whether for drafting, editing, summarizing or enhancing written responses, could be considered fraud when such use is explicitly prohibited. Even when intended to support or refine work, relying on AI can undermine the validity of the assessment and create an unfair advantage. Careful attention to requirements, along with individual accountability, is essential to ensure that results accurately reflect individual competencies.

Authority

This investigation was conducted under section 69 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c.22, ss. 12 and 13).

Issue

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a candidate committed fraud in an advertised appointment process by using AI during a written assessment where such use was prohibited.

Conclusion

The investigation concluded that the candidate committed fraud by using AI-powered tools during the written assessment despite clear instructions prohibiting the use of AI or outside assistance.

Facts

An advertised appointment process was launched to staff policy analyst positions. The appointment process included a written assessment administered through an online platform.

Candidates received instructions indicating that the assessment had to be completed independently and without help from any person or AI. These instructions were communicated at several stages of the process, including in the invitation to the assessment, within the online assessment platform and through mandatory acknowledgement statements requiring candidates to confirm their compliance before proceeding.

During the evaluation of the assessments, the hiring board identified similarities between the candidate’s submission and AI-generated text, which raised concerns about the possible use of AI tools. As a result, the department submitted an investigation request.

During the investigation, the candidate admitted to using tools to prepare their response, including tools used to research, organize, summarize and improve writing clarity. The candidate stated that some tools were used primarily to review grammar, improve phrasing and enhance the professionalism of the writing, while other tools were used to synthesize and organize information gathered during research. The candidate maintained that the essential content, ideas and structure of the response reflected their own knowledge and abilities and asserted that the tools were used only to help present and research rather than to generate the response itself.

The investigation determined that the tools identified by the candidate incorporated AI-powered functionality. The evidence showed that certain tools used by the candidate were explicitly identified and marketed as AI-powered applications designed to generate, summarize, rephrase and refine written content. The candidate also acknowledged that at least some of the tools used during the assessment were AI-based.

The investigation found that the instructions prohibiting AI use were explicit, repeated and clearly communicated throughout the assessment process. Although the candidate stated that they did not carefully review the instructions due to familiarity with the platform and time pressures, this explanation was not considered credible given the repeated warnings, the requirement to acknowledge compliance and the candidate’s professional background and familiarity with academic integrity standards.

The evidence showed that, on the balance of probabilities, the candidate acted dishonestly by knowingly using AI-powered tools, contrary to the assessment instructions to increase their chances of succeeding in the appointment process. Their actions compromised the fairness and integrity of the appointment process by:

• providing an unfair advantage over candidates who complied with the rules
• interfering with the board’s ability to accurately assess the candidate’s individual competencies, including the analytical and synthesis skills essential to the position

Corrective actions

Following the finding of fraud in the appointment process, the Commission ordered that:

• for a period of two years, the person must notify the Public Service Commission of Canada before accepting any position or employment in the federal public service
• failure to do so will result in the revocation of the appointment
• if the person joins the federal public service within the two-year period, they must complete the Values and Ethics Foundations for Employees course offered by the Canada School of Public Service, and then have a discussion with their manager
• failure to comply will result in the revocation of the appointment

File Number 26-27-04