Evaluation panels score inconsistently across reviewers
Without a shared, weighted grid, the same file can get very different scores from one panel to the next.
02/The challenge
Without a shared, weighted grid, the same file can get very different scores from one panel to the next.
Consolidating files, distributing scorecards, collecting feedback — everything is done manually.
Justifying a decision after the fact is difficult in the event of a dispute or accreditation audit.
100% of EU/UK RFPs now require AI Act compliance — every decision must be documented and justifiable.
Reviewers see too many files in too little time, creating decision fatigue.
03/Features
6 capabilities, each shown the way it runs in the product. Scroll through them.
0106
Customizable scoring rubrics by program — weighted criteria, structured comments, consistent scoring across panels. Every dimension is configurable without code.
0206
Automatic pre-scoring of files before jury presentation — explainable scoring by academic, professional, and motivational dimension. SHAP technology on every dimension.
0306
Dedicated jury member portal: access to filtered files, score entry, real-time deliberation tracking. Accessible from any device.
0406
Every AI recommendation is justified — SHAP technology, detailed scoring criteria, no black box. Ready for AACSB, EQUIS, AMBA audits.
0506
Complete log of every decision: timestamp, model version, evaluators involved. 6 AI Act compliance pillars covered, external audit completed.
0606
Automatic masking of personal data (PII) during evaluation — names, photos, gender, nationality redacted to ensure fairness.
04/How It Works
Configure your scoring criteria, evaluation rubrics, and workflows. Connect to your CRM via API in a matter of hours.
The applicant submits their file. Documents are received and structured automatically.
AI checks eligibility, validates documents, and generates an explainable score with breakdown by dimension.
Your teams review the shortlists. The human always makes the final decision.
Decisions trigger personalized communications. Admitted students receive their onboarding information instantly.
05/Benefits
Measured
AI Act compliance — 6 pillars, external audit done.
06/Case Study
Define rubrics, criteria weights, and reviewer assignments for each evaluation context.
Student submissions are collected and organized. Relevant context is prepared for reviewers.
The platform provides structured scoring interfaces with rubric guidance and consistency checks.
For jury decisions, the platform compiles dossiers with all relevant information and prior assessments.
Final grades and decisions are recorded with full rationale for future reference.
07/Human in the loop
What Is Automated
What Remains Human
Audit trail
Output 01 ■ logged
Complete scoring history with criteria and rationale.
Output 02 ■ logged
Documented decisions with voting records and justifications.
Output 03 ■ logged
Insights into grading patterns across instructors and courses.
Next / 03
Graduation & Records