✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [9/10]: The headline accurately reflects the core argument of the article: that AI has exposed systemic flaws in university assessment methods rather than created them. It avoids sensationalism and uses neutral, reflective language.

"AI didn't break universities, it exposed them"

✕ Loaded Language [10/10]: The author uses measured, reflective language throughout, avoiding inflammatory or emotionally manipulative rhetoric. Even when discussing serious concerns, the tone remains constructive and analytical.

"The uncomfortable bit is not that students can now produce essays without thinking. It is that we built a system in which they probably always could, if they were determined enough."

✕ Editorializing [10/10]: The article avoids editorializing in a dismissive way and instead critically examines the institution’s own role in the problem, using self-reflection rather than blame.

"It is not AI’s fault that polished output without thought used to slip through. It is ours for grading the polish."

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [9/10]: The author acknowledges opposing viewpoints within academia, specifically referencing colleagues who advocate for phone-free classrooms and analog teaching spaces, and treats their position with respect and nuance.

"To my colleagues making the opposite case, course readers, phone-free classrooms, real attendance, the seminar room as a protected analogue space, there is real value in much of what they propose, and I am not pretending otherwise."

✓ Proper Attribution [10/10]: The article is authored by a named academic with relevant expertise (lecturer in supply chain management), and while it is a first-person opinion piece, the author clearly identifies their role and institutional affiliation, supporting transparency.

"Dr Paul Davis is a lecturer at Dublin City University’s Business School. He specialises in supply chain management and procurement."

✕ Framing by Emphasis [10/10]: The article avoids framing the issue as a simple conflict between pro- and anti-AI camps, instead reframing the debate around the quality of assessments themselves. This shifts the narrative from technology to pedagogy.

"The fight is not between pro-AI and anti-AI. It is between assessments that measure thinking and assessments that measure something easier."

✕ Narrative Framing [10/10]: The author resists moral or panic-driven framing of AI, instead using it as a catalyst for institutional self-reflection, which represents a mature and constructive narrative approach.

"AI is the inconvenient mirror."