Students
Show your process, not just the result.
Upload your work, attach AI conversations, annotate where help was used, and reflect on your choices.
- Upload assignments
- Attach AI transcripts
- Annotate AI-assisted passages
- Add a short reflection
Built by students, for students
Bring clarity to AI use in academic work.
Papiro helps schools and universities guide, document, and review AI use with confidence, turning transparency into trust. Built to meet EU AI Act transparency requirements and accreditation standards.
Built for institutions · EU AI Act transparency · Accreditation standards
PAPIRO
WorkspaceAI chatsSent inSettings
Victor De Schutter
student@institution.ac
Papiro student workflow
Document and submit your work
Show where AI supported your work and link those moments to the prompts you used.
Project
Foreign Economics
FE-118-P2
Assignment
2Sources
3Annotate
4Reflect
5Review
Step 2. Sources
1 chat selectedChoose the AI chats and uploaded file you want to include.
Choose AI chats
Pick saved chats that document your AI use.
Search project folders
All foldersSelected · 1Unsorted · 2
Argentinian Economy and Milei
CHATGPT · 30-03-2026
Outline · counter-examples
CLAUDE · 28-03-2026
Project upload
Upload the file you want to annotate.
Drag a file or browse
PDF · DOCX · PPTX
Article_ArgentinianDecline.pdf
3.5 MB
Progress and guidance
successAssignment DH-118-P2 found. You still have 2 submissions left.
Assignment readyYes
AI chats selected1 selected
Source file uploadedYes
Why now
AI is already in every classroom. The real question is how you respond.
The choice isn't ban or allow. It's whether you can see what's happening, talk about it honestly, and review it fairly.
AI use is outpacing institutional guidance
Adoption is happening in every classroom. Policy frameworks struggle to keep pace with day-to-day reality.
Programmes respond inconsistently
What's allowed in one course is forbidden in the next. Students and teachers are left guessing.
Detectors create false certainty
Probabilistic flags don't make fair conversations. Institutions need context, not verdicts.
Regulators now require documented transparency
The EU AI Act classifies AI systems in education as high-risk. Institutions without a documented transparency process face compliance gaps and audit exposure.
Papiro vs. AI detectors
One produces a false verdict.
The other reproduces context.
See the same student paper reviewed two ways. Detectors guess. Papiro documents.
1Same paper
2Review
3Findings
4Outcome
AI detector
DetectAI · v3.2
Black box
student.docx · 1,240 words
Argentina: Between Recovery and Decline
AI probability
—
No explanation
Verdict
Pending…
VS
Papiro
Documented review
Transparent
student.docx · 1,240 words · 2 annotations
Argentina: Between Recovery and Decline
AI use, documented
—
Prompts linked to text
Outcome
Pending…
Who it's for
Designed for institutions that want a clearer way forward.
Educators
Review with context, not suspicion.
See submissions alongside the AI context the student provided and grade with confidence.
- See submission + AI context
- Read student annotations
- Compare original vs. assisted
- Leave structured feedback
Institutions
Turn policy into practice.
A consistent framework across courses and faculties, audit-ready, accreditation-aligned, and independent of detection tools.
- Programme-wide consistency
- Audit-ready documentation trail
- Accreditation body alignment
- EU AI Act compliance
- Reduced reliance on detectors
How it works
A simple flow on both sides, student and reviewer.
Papiro doesn't try to catch AI use. It makes the work process visible so that grading can be more accurate, more fair, and more honest.
S
The student side
From draft to submissionStep 01
Assignment
Load task and key details
Step 02
Sources
Attach AI conversations
Step 03
Annotate
Mark where AI was used
Step 04
Reflect
Explain your choices
Step 05
Review & submit
Send a review-ready record
R
The reviewer side
- Step 01Open submissionWork, prompts and reflection together
- Step 02See AI contextTools, prompts and annotated regions
- Step 03Read annotations and reflectionWhy AI was used at each spot
- Step 04Evaluate with nuanceGrade with structure, not suspicion
Papiro
SubmissionsDr. Mira Solberg
teacher@papiro.test
POL-204-A1
Student overview
Random sample of 3 students prepared.
⤫ Draw sample
All (11)Needs attention (4)Missing (2)Drafts (3)Sample (3)
Student
State
Latest
Flags
Avery Lane
CPW-001
submitted
27-03-2026
Random sample
Samira Haddad
CPW-003
submitted
27-03-2026
Brief reflectionRandom sample
Jules Mercier
CPW-005
reviewed
25-03-2026
Random sample
Principles
Papiro gives context, not a verdict.
We don't tell you whether something is fraud, fully AI, or "safe". We help you see the work behind the work, so the conversation between teacher and student can be honest and grounded.
What it is not
- A pure AI detector
- A surveillance product
- An automatic grading system
- A replacement for the teacher
What it is
- A provenance & documentation product
- A structured review workflow
- A way to make AI use discussable
- A tool for fairer interpretation
Get started
Bring clarity to AI in your institution.
Schedule a conversation with our team. We'll walk through how Papiro fits your existing courses, policies, compliance requirements, and what a pilot looks like in practice.
No commitment · We'll follow up within 48 hours