Friction]
An AI-supported assessment platform that makes student thinking visible.
Educators see the product.
They never see the process]
Generative AI has irrevocably changed how students work. Universities now ask for “AI reflections” — but the reflection itself can be fabricated by the same tool that wrote the essay.
Educators receive the final essay and nothing else — the process is invisible.
Student over-reliance on GenAI — using it to substitute for engagement rather than enhance it — has become a recognised hurdle in higher-ed assessment.
The window for building assessment systems that meaningfully evaluate AI-assisted learning is closing — fast.
Many educators are moving from prohibition toward integration — embedding AI into assessment to prepare students for an AI-literate job market.
But the shift creates a validity problem. Instructors receive the final essay and nothing else. They cannot tell whether a student engaged with the ideas or simply delegated cognition to a machine.
Assessment systems built only around final products cannot answer the question that now matters most: how was this made?
Friction is the resistance between intention and insight. We think that’s where learning happens — and where assessment should look.
Three agents.
One visible record of thinking.
Friction is a web-based workspace that makes student–AI collaboration visible, structured, and pedagogically meaningful. A layered AI architecture observes the process and reports on it — without surveilling the student.
Task Assistant
The student’s primary workspace — a ChatGPT-style interface embedded beside a working document. Every prompt, response, paste event, and timing signal is captured as it happens.
Companion Peer
An optional AI study partner. Meaningful pastes may offer a collapsed invitation without taking focus or switching panels. Students choose when a conversation would help and can keep writing or skip.
Friction Report
On submission, Friction brings together recorded activity, saved drafts, exact conversations and document excerpts. A clearly labelled AI review connects evidence to the educator’s criteria for human assessment.
The contested duty of care in algorithmic decision-making
Two flows.
One continuous record.
Friction runs alongside existing assessment, not on top of it. The student experience stays familiar; the educator gets something they’ve never had before.
A · Student flow
Student drafts in the workspace
Essay on one side, AI beside it. Prompts, pastes, and edits captured in real time.
Companion offers optional support
A meaningful paste may offer a collapsed invitation. The document keeps focus and the Task Assistant stays available.
Student decides whether to respond
Keep writing, reply when useful, or skip. Conversations are recorded; skipping is not evidence of misconduct.
Final submission closes the record
The full interaction trace is sealed and passed to Layer 03 for synthesis.
B · Educator flow
Educator enables the Companion Peer
One clear switch controls a fixed paste-aware flow: Task Assistant matches at 30+ words and unknown pastes at 100+ words.
Friction Report, not just a grade
A criteria-aligned review with recorded activity, saved drafts, exact conversations and linked source evidence.
Evidence is mapped to rubric
Document and process criteria use separate evidence. Each AI interpretation links to the sources a human can review.
Feedback grounded in evidence
Use the submission and recorded sources to discuss the student's work. Academic judgement remains with the educator.
A published object,
not a dashboard]
We treat each report as an academic artefact — criteria-aligned, citable, and designed to be read.
The Friction Report arrives with the submission. It doesn’t replace the essay — it sits beside it, surfacing the process the essay conceals.
Clear section navigation, readable evidence and exact transcripts support review on screen or in print. AI interpretations are labelled and linked to their sources; they are not grades or authorship verdicts.
- 01Concise, clearly labelled AI review
- 02Criteria-aligned evidence panel
- 03Recorded session time and activity counts
- 04Exact optional Companion conversations
- 05Paste evidence and saved draft changes
- 06Linked sources and explicit evidence limits
Friction] Report
A criteria-aligned review with linked evidence.
Three sessions and seven paste events were recorded. One passage matched a Task Assistant response; other paste origins could not be established. Review the recorded excerpts alongside the submission before drawing conclusions.
Five days.
One winning prototype.
Friction won the challenge track at the 2026 EduX Oceania Hackathon — designed, built, and deployed in five days. The demo below was the winning submission.
See clearly.
Act meaningfully]
We're aiming to open pilots soon with a small number of law schools and AI-forward faculties. One semester, one assessment, one subject.
Log in to live prototype →Get in touch →