Evidence that students understand their work, with academic judgement kept in academic hands.
VeriViva prepares, captures and structures academic-led oral defences, so academics can see whether a student understands and can defend the work they submitted.
Which limitation most affects your conclusion, and what would you do differently?
What the participant said
Student 31 marked the highlighted words as not what they said
The sample is small, only eleven (marked as not what they said) participants, so the conclusion could be different with a larger group. I would recruit more people. Beyond that, I don't think the other limitations change the conclusion, they are in the chapter but they don't matter much.
Play this answer · 01:20–02:25 · Attempt 1
A good answer
Name the limitation that most affects the conclusionEssential
Say what they would do differently, specificallyEssential
They would not
Dismiss the other limitations as unimportant
Repeat the dissertation text without explaining it
Your decision
MetShows what we look for1
Mostly metEvery essential point, with most others2
Partly met (selected)Some, not all3
Not evidencedNot in the answer4
Needs reviewCome back to it5
Confirmed by Academic 1 · 13 Oct 2026
Decision · Academic 1. A named person is always responsible for the overall Viva decision.
Demo data · names and figures are examples, not customer data
Who it's for
Built for education & assessment support teams.
Who it's for
✓Programme and module teams
✓Academics running oral defences or vivas
✓Assessment, quality and academic integrity leads
✓Students, who get a fair chance to explain their work
Evidence activities
✓Academic-led oral defence of submitted work
✓Questions drawn from the submission, brief and rubric
✓An evidence pack for the academic or panel
Roles involved
Module leads
Academic reviewers
Assessment panels
Quality teams
Students
Product
Inside the workspace.
A dashboard across your assessments, the queue of evidence waiting for a person, and the screen where they decide.
app.veriviva.ai / homeDemo data
VVeriviva
Current siteNorth Site · North region
SiteNorth Site
Signed in · Academic 1
Home
How assessments are going across your account.
Edit dashboard
Outcome mix
How reviewers decided the responses: met, partly met, not evidenced or needs review, and the share that needs action.
Dissertation oral defence
Dissertation oral defence: Met 31%, Mostly met 28%, Partly met 24%, Not evidenced 10%, Needs review 7%
41% need action
Research methods viva
Research methods viva: Met 36%, Mostly met 26%, Partly met 21%, Not evidenced 9%, Needs review 8%
38% need action
Placement report defence
Placement report defence: Met 40%, Mostly met 27%, Partly met 19%, Not evidenced 8%, Needs review 6%
33% need action
Project questioning
Project questioning: Met 34%, Mostly met 29%, Partly met 22%, Not evidenced 9%, Needs review 6%
37% need action
Met
Mostly met
Partly met
Not evidenced
Needs review
Awaiting review
Vivas by status
How many vivas are invited, in progress, completed or abandoned, with links to each list.
21Invited
8In progress
73Completed
2Abandoned
Knowledge gap by role
Where the gaps are, by participant role: the share of reviewed responses that need action.
Row
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Cohort 4
Dissertation oral defence
32%
27%
35%
22%
Research methods viva
38%
29%
Too few to show
25%
Placement report defence
24%
18%
21%
16%
Project questioning
30%
26%
28%
20%
Waiting for a reviewer
Completed Vivas that are ready for a reviewer, with the oldest waiting first.
9vivas ready to review2 over 3 days
Under a day · 3
1–3 days · 4
Over 3 days · 2
Dissertation oral defence4 · oldest 5 days
Research methods viva3 · oldest 4 days
Project questioning2 · oldest 2 days
Open the review queue →
Vivas completed over time
How many Vivas were completed in each of the last twelve weeks.
6this week
Completed by week, oldest first: 3, 4, 4, 6, 5, 7, 6, 8, 7, 9, 8, 6. The last figure is this week so far.
Last 12 weeks. Hatched bar: this week so far.
Where gaps are most common
Questions with the largest share of reviewed answers needing action.
Explaining a limitation of the method40%
Justifying the choice of sample34%
Describing which sections were drafted with supervision28%
Connecting findings back to the research question22%
See every question →
app.veriviva.ai / review-queueDemo data
VVeriviva
Current siteNorth Site · North region
SiteNorth Site
Signed in · Academic 1
Review queue
Vivas with evidence ready and no decision yet. Open one to review it.
AssessmentAll assessments
Review statusAll
Student 31
Dissertation oral defence · ED-031
Completed
12 Oct 2026In review (2 of 5)Review Viva
Student 12
Research methods viva · ED-029
Completed
8 Oct 2026Evidence ready · pack v1 · Ready for reviewReview Viva
Student 45
Dissertation oral defence · ED-028
Completed
9 Oct 2026Evidence ready · pack v1 · Ready for reviewReview Viva
Student 7
Project questioning · ED-026
Completed
12 Oct 2026Ready for your decisionReview Viva
Student 19
Research methods viva · ED-025
Completed
13 Oct 2026Evidence ready · pack v1 · Ready for reviewReview Viva
Dissertation oral defence · ED-031 · invited 5 Oct 2026 · interview ended 12 Oct 2026 · not yet signed off
Evidence readyRecord details
Review at a glance
Your review
2 of 5 decided
What you decided
What you decided: Met 20%, Partly met 20%, Awaiting review 60%
Responses
Question 1MetConfirmed
Question 2Partly metConfirmed
Question 3Awaiting reviewAwaiting your decision
Question 4Awaiting reviewAwaiting your decision
Question 5Awaiting reviewAwaiting your decision
Viva decision3 to go
Question 2 of 5
Which limitation most affects your conclusion, and what would you do differently?
What the participant said
Student 31 marked the highlighted words as not what they said
The sample is small, only eleven (marked as not what they said) participants, so the conclusion could be different with a larger group. I would recruit more people. Beyond that, I don't think the other limitations change the conclusion, they are in the chapter but they don't matter much.
Play this answer · 01:20–02:25 · Attempt 1
Participant noteI said fourteen participants, not eleven. I can show the consent forms if needed.The note does not change the transcript. Weigh it against the recording.
A good answer
Name the limitation that most affects the conclusionEssential
Explain how it could change the finding
Say what they would do differently, specificallyEssential
Be accurate about the sample
They would not
Dismiss the other limitations as unimportant
Repeat the dissertation text without explaining it
Claim the conclusion is certain
Attempt 1 · video and audio. There is no direct recording download.
Your decision
MetShows what we look for1
Mostly metEvery essential point, with most others2
Partly met (selected)Some, not all3
Not evidencedNot in the answer4
Needs reviewCome back to it5
Confirmed by Academic 1 · 13 Oct 2026
Viva decision
Your overall outcome, once every response has your decision.
Evidenced
Follow-up needed
Record decision
← Previous2 of 5 decidedNext →
Vivas by status
How many vivas are invited, in progress, completed or abandoned, with links to each list.
21Invited
8In progress
73Completed
2Abandoned
Demo data · names and figures are examples, not customer data
How it works here
What makes it work in this sector.
The dialogue stays with the academic
For summative use, the academic conducts the oral defence. VeriViva drafts questions from the submission, brief and rubric, each with the passage it is based on, then captures the evidence and structures it for the academic.
No risk scores. No suggested outcome.
VeriViva never decides authorship, misconduct, pass or fail, or grades, and it never produces a student risk score. VeriViva does not suggest an outcome: the education vertical switches the AI suggestion off, and the academic records every measure.
More than a plagiarism-era answer
As AI-assisted drafting becomes normal, what matters is whether a student can explain and defend their work. VeriViva gives universities a structured, fair and reviewable way to find out.
01Ground
Questions drawn from the student's submission, the brief and the rubric.
02Approve
The academic edits and approves every question before the student sees it.
03Defend
An academic-led oral defence, with the evidence captured for review.
04Decide
The academic or panel reviews the evidence pack and records the judgement.
Delivery. Assessor-led delivery, with the academic conducting the oral defence, is the primary mode for summative assessment. Guided by VeriViva is available where the institution chooses it.
Programme visibility
See where understanding needs follow-up.
See, by assessment and cohort, where answers most often need follow-up. It shows patterns across groups, never automated judgements about individual students.
app.veriviva.ai / homeDemo data
SiteNorth Site
Signed in · Academic 1
Knowledge gap by role
Where the gaps are, by participant role: the share of reviewed responses that need action.
Row
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Cohort 4
Dissertation oral defence
32%
27%
35%
22%
Research methods viva
38%
29%
Too few to show
25%
Placement report defence
24%
18%
21%
16%
Project questioning
30%
26%
28%
20%
Where gaps are most common
Questions with the largest share of reviewed answers needing action.
Explaining a limitation of the method40%
Justifying the choice of sample34%
Describing which sections were drafted with supervision28%
Connecting findings back to the research question22%
See every question →
Demo data · names and figures are examples, not customer data
Largest gaps · demo data
Cohort 1 · Research methods viva38%
Cohort 3 · Dissertation oral defence35%
Cohort 1 · Dissertation oral defence32%
Share of reviewed responses that need action.
For assessment and quality teams
Follow-up you can evidence
Aggregate views show where understanding needs follow-up by assessment, question and cohort, alongside every individual academic judgement.
For academics
Less preparation
Draft questions, each with the passage it is based on, and a structured evidence pack support the conversation without replacing it.
For students
A fair chance to explain
An assessor-led route is there for anyone who can't be on camera, and accent, fluency and confidence are never treated as evidence of understanding.
Decisions and safeguards
Who decides, and how people are protected.
Decision owner
The academic or authorised assessment panel owns every academic judgement, and approves the evidence before it informs any decision about a student.
Safeguards
✓Accent, fluency, confidence, eye contact and hesitation are never treated as evidence
✓Reasonable adjustments and an assessor-led alternative route
✓The institution's own consent, access and appeal rules apply
✓Moderation rules set by the institution, not by VeriViva
✓Every question approved by an academic before use
Questions
Frequently asked
Does VeriViva detect AI-written work?+
No. VeriViva is not a detector. It helps academics gather evidence of whether a student understands and can defend their work, and the academic makes the judgement.
Does the academic still run the viva?+
For summative assessment, yes. The academic conducts the oral defence, and VeriViva drafts the questions and captures and structures the evidence.
Does VeriViva produce a score or a misconduct flag?+
No. There are no student risk scores and no automated authorship, misconduct, pass/fail or grade decisions. VeriViva does not suggest an outcome: the academic records every measure and the overall decision.
How are students with adjustments supported?+
Reasonable adjustments are supported, and an assessor-led route is available for anyone who can't be on camera. Presentation style is never treated as evidence.
Who handles appeals?+
The institution. Its own appeal rules apply. VeriViva keeps the evidence and the academic's decision in the audit trail, but it doesn't run an appeals process.
A correct answer isn't enough on its own. It has to be in the right order, specific to the site, and clear about where the person's own authority ends.
