Accreditation
Readiness check
What the checks found, and whether the report is ready to publish. Findings never block a draft.
Readiness
Rules · free62of 100
Internal draft: readyFinal: not yet · 3.3, 4.2, 6.2 not approved{{excludedLine}}
Approvals9 of 12 approved
Evidence8 of 12 complete
Comments3 open
Formatting7 findings · Auto-format
Accessibility1 heading level
Recommendation
Publish an internal draft now. For a final: send 4.2 and 6.2 back for evidence, get 3.3 written and 4.2, 6.2 approved, resolve 3 comments, then Auto-format.
AI readiness
AILockedSee it the way a reviewer will
AI reads every selected standard the way a SACSCOC reviewer would and scores what the rules can't:
- Argument strength: does each standard actually make its case?
- Evidence sufficiency: which claims have nothing behind them.
- Consistency: numbers and names that disagree between standards.
- Clarity: passages a reviewer is likely to misread.
- Reviewer readiness: which standards still carry a finding a committee would cite.
Suggestions only. Nothing changes without you; every finding can be sent back like any other.
29 credits for 12 standards · 1,866 left this year
AI readinessLocked
Standards in this draft
Open any standard to read it, comment on it, or send it back, approved ones too. Formatting is fixed in Preview.
1.1 Integrity · 2 findings1 open comment · 1 spelling
- MediumOpen comment · paragraph 3"Cite the policy revision date." · Dr. Maria Santos, 14 Oct 2026
- MediumSpelling · paragraph 1"recieved" → "received"
2.1 Institutional Mission · 4 findings2 spelling · 1 style · 1 changed link
- MediumSpelling · paragraph 2"occurence" → "occurrence"
- MediumSpelling · paragraph 4"comittee" → "committee"
- LowStyle · paragraph 3"We believe" · first person; the style guide uses "the University"
- LowChanged link · paragraph 5Mission statement page now redirects (301); the text still reads as before
3.1 Governing Board · 2 findings1 table wider than the page · 1 open comment
- HighTable wider than the page · Table 3.1 · Board composition, page 157 columns at 100% exceed the print width; Auto-format can scale or turn it landscape
- MediumOpen comment · paragraph 2"Clarify the recusal rule." · Priya Natarajan, 15 Oct 2026
3.2 Board Oversight · No findingsAll 12 checks passed · approved 9 Oct 2026
3.3 Administrative Staff · Not startedNo response yet · due 20 Oct 2026
4.1 Institutional Planning · No findingsAll 12 checks passed · approved 8 Oct 2026
4.2 Assessment of Outcomes · 4 findings2 expected documents missing · 1 oversized image · 1 heading level
- HighExpected document missing · Evidence listAssessment report 2024–25 · expected 3 attachments, 1 attached
- HighExpected document missing · Evidence listProgramme review schedule · nothing attached
- MediumOversized image · Figure 4.2, page 614.1 MB · limit 1 MB; Auto-format can resize it
- MediumHeading level · "Results", page 62H4 directly under H2 · one level skipped
5.1 Faculty Qualifications · No findingsAll 12 checks passed · approved 6 Oct 2026
5.2 Faculty Evaluation · 1 finding1 open comment
- MediumOpen comment · paragraph 1"Add the evaluation cycle length." · Dr. Maria Santos, 12 Oct 2026
6.1 Financial Resources · 2 findings1 table wider than the page · 1 oversized image
- HighTable wider than the page · Table 6.1 · Operating budget, page 1189 columns; Auto-format can scale or turn it landscape
- MediumOversized image · Figure 6.1, page 1193.2 MB · limit 1 MB
6.2 Physical Resources · 2 findingsExpected evidence count not set · 0 documents
- HighExpected evidence count not set · Standard settingsThe standard lists no expected documents, so nothing can be checked against it
- MediumNo documents attached · Evidence list0 attached; at least 1 is expected for a Compliance judgment