AQA 7042 · C3.26 - Referencing and independently verifying AI use
A useful AI-use record explains what happened, what you checked and what you did yourself. Learn to build that trail from real evidence and connect it to the declarations on the 2027 Candidate Record Form.
Three separate integrity tests
An AI acknowledgement is a record of what happened. It allows a teacher to see what tool was used, what it produced and what the learner did with the output. It is important, but it does not by itself prove that the use was permitted or that the resulting historical work is independent.
Keep three questions separate:
- Was the use permitted? The use must fit current AQA History guidance and the centre's policy. Acknowledging an otherwise unacceptable use does not make it acceptable.
- Was the use fully disclosed? The record must identify the actual tool and interaction, not merely say
AI was used. - Was the content independently verified and the assessed thinking student-owned? The learner must test any information they rely on through sources outside the AI output and perform their own selection, analysis, evaluation and judgement.
The same evidence cannot answer all three questions. A screenshot can show what an AI tool produced, but it cannot show that a historical claim is true. A source reference can show how a claim was checked, but it cannot reveal an omitted prompt. A written explanation connects these records by showing how the output affected the learner's process.
Record the actual interaction
A complete record is made from the real interaction as it happens. It is not a polished story reconstructed at the end. AQA's History-specific guidance and the wider JCQ guidance require enough detail for the teacher to compare the interaction, the learner's explanation and the submitted work.
| Record element | What an accurate record shows | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Tool identity | Tool name, available version information, access link and generation date | Identify the actual service and interaction. If version information is not supplied, state that honestly rather than inventing it, and verify the content through referenced independent sources. |
| Input | The exact prompts, follow-up prompts or search terms entered | A summary such as asked about my topic can hide how the result was obtained. |
| Interaction evidence | Annotated screenshots or another non-editable record of the relevant prompts and outputs; original work before any direct AI modification | Preserve what happened and what changed. An annotation identifies relevant material; it does not rewrite the underlying record. Retaining a change does not itself make that change permissible. |
| Configuration | Relevant settings or parameters actually used to achieve specific results; record a known default accurately if relevant | Parameters can change the output. Do not invent settings or claim to know hidden provider configuration. |
| Use explanation | A specific account of how the content was adapted, refined and integrated, or why it was rejected | This connects the AI interaction to the learner's own process and shows what, if anything, entered the assessed work. |
| Verification trail | The independent sources used, the exact claims checked and the result of each check | This separates generated content from evidence capable of supporting historical work. |
The September 2026 JCQ guidance makes clear that disclosure covers assistance with planning and structure even if no AI wording is pasted into the work. AI features embedded in ordinary writing software, including spelling, punctuation and grammar support, must also be appropriately acknowledged. A feature’s convenient location is not an exemption; check what it actually did and follow AQA and centre rules.
Teachers may support learners in placing these references within the NEA and on the Candidate Record Form where applicable. The learner still owns the factual record: the teacher cannot supply missing prompts, reconstruct screenshots or invent settings on the learner's behalf.
The following record is fictional. ArchiveGuide is an invented tool, and the interaction contains no real historical material.
| Field in the fictional record | Entry |
|---|---|
| Tool | ArchiveGuide; version omitted; homepage link supplied; generated 12 January 2026 |
| Prompt | I asked it for background information |
| Screenshot | Cropped output only; no input is visible and no annotation identifies what was used |
| Settings | Probably the default settings |
| Explanation | It helped with my research |
Verify beyond the output
Independent verification begins by treating the AI response as an unconfirmed claim, not as an authority. This remains true when the response supplies a plausible-looking link, quotation, page number or bibliography. JCQ requires a learner to check sources supplied by an AI tool; where the tool supplies no sources, the learner must locate suitable sources independently.
Use this sequence for each claim that might affect the work:
- Isolate the claim. Record the exact date, quotation, attribution, statistic, reference or interpretation that needs checking.
- Leave the AI response. Open the underlying source the tool names, or locate an appropriate independent source through a library, archive, museum, university, publisher or other authoritative collection.
- Check identity and context. Confirm that the source exists, its author or creator, title, date, edition or repository reference, and the exact passage or record. Read enough surrounding material to avoid changing its meaning.
- Corroborate where the claim matters. Test a consequential or contested claim against another authoritative source where appropriate. Two AI summaries of the same claim are not two independent checks.
- Record the outcome. Mark the claim as supported, qualified or rejected, and reference the sources actually used to reach that decision. If the source or passage cannot be verified, do not convert the AI wording into a fact.
An independent verification note therefore needs more than checked online. It identifies the claim, gives the exact source details and location, records what the learner personally checked, states whether the evidence supports the claim and records the action taken. The AI screenshot remains in the acknowledgement trail, while the independently consulted sources carry the historical evidence.
Consider this wholly fictional diagnosis. Every place, publication, institution and quotation below is invented and must not be cited as historical evidence.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account