Last week I was in London for the e-Assessment Association’s 2026 International Conference, and if I had to distill three days of conversations, keynotes, and hallway debates into a single word, it would be this: trust.

Not trust as a buzzword. Trust as a genuine crisis question. As AI capabilities accelerate and new tools emerge faster than most teams can keep up with, the field is being forced to reckon with something foundational: do assessment results still mean what we say they mean?

That tension ran through nearly every session I attended, and it’s one our industry can’t afford to get wrong.

The Threat Landscape Is Moving Fast

One of the clearest messages from the conference was that assessment security is no longer a static problem. Cheating technologies are growing more sophisticated by the month. What worked two years ago may not be sufficient today, and relying on yesterday’s approach while hoping for the best is not a strategy.

At the same time, there’s a real risk of overcorrecting. Security measures that create friction, penalize legitimate candidates, or feel invasive erode trust from a different direction. The most mature programs in the room were the ones thinking about security, accessibility, and candidate experience as a unified design challenge rather than competing priorities.

‍

Human Oversight Is Not Negotiable

One point emerged from this conference without serious debate: keeping a human in the loop is not optional. Multiple sessions, including remarks from several CEOs, affirmed that governance, transparency, and meaningful human involvement are essential to maintaining confidence in assessment outcomes.

This is not a novel position for us at Integrity Advocate. It is the architecture we have built around since day one. But it was validating to hear it stated so clearly and so universally, particularly at a moment when the industry is under pressure to automate everything in the name of efficiency.

When an assessment result affects someone’s career, their credential, their livelihood, cutting corners on human review is not a cost savings. It is a liability.

Candidate Experience Is Now a Trust Variable

Something I found particularly valuable in this year’s programming was the explicit connection being drawn between candidate experience and assessment integrity. Fairness used to be discussed almost exclusively through the lens of psychometrics and policy. That framing is expanding.

How candidates are treated during an assessment, whether the process feels transparent, whether accommodations are genuinely accessible, whether the communication is clear, these factors now register as trust signals for institutions, employers, and regulators alike. A technically sound exam delivered badly is still a trust problem.

‍

The Takeaway I’m Bringing Home

The strongest assessment programs are designing trust in from the beginning, not retrofitting it as a compliance requirement after the fact. That principle is easy to say and genuinely hard to operationalize, especially when the tooling, the regulations, and the threat environment are all shifting simultaneously.

What gives me optimism is that the people in that room in London were asking the right questions. The eAA has always been a community that takes this work seriously, and this year’s conference reflected that.

AI is not going away. The integrity gap will not close on its own. But with the right governance structures, the right human oversight, and a genuine commitment to candidate experience, it is a solvable problem.

I’m leaving with new ideas, new connections, and renewed conviction that this is exactly the work worth doing.

{{post-cta}}

Integrity Advocate has completed SOC 2 Type II certification for the third consecutive year, with support from auditors at the Johanson Group and security partner Carbide.

SOC 2 Type II compliance represents an ongoing commitment to security, privacy, and the responsible handling of sensitive data. For partners, clients, and learners, it means the systems and processes protecting their information have been independently verified under real-world operating conditions, not just reviewed on paper.

What SOC 2 Type II Certification Involves

SOC 2 Type II is not a one-time audit. It is an extended review conducted over several months that evaluates how effectively an organization's security and privacy controls perform under actual operating conditions. The process includes defining security controls, implementing appropriate policies, conducting risk assessments, and continuously monitoring systems to ensure those controls hold up over time.

The Type II designation is significant. Where Type I confirms that controls exist at a point in time, Type II confirms that those controls operated effectively over an extended period. It is the higher standard, and the one that matters most to organizations evaluating a vendor's security posture.

Why Integrity Advocate Pursues SOC 2 Certification

SOC 2 Type II certification is commonly obtained by SaaS vendors to demonstrate effective security controls to enterprise clients and partners. At Integrity Advocate, the motivation goes further than that.

Data security is a responsibility, not a checkbox. Integrity Advocate handles sensitive data on behalf of clients every day, including government-issued ID images, biometric data, and session recordings. The people whose data this is should never have to wonder whether it is being handled securely. SOC 2 certification is one way of demonstrating that the answer is yes, backed by independent verification rather than self-assertion.

Trust is earned through consistent practice. SOC 2 Type II measures controls over time, not at a single moment. Achieving it three consecutive years reflects a sustained commitment to maintaining security standards as threats evolve, not a one-time effort to pass an audit.

Certification makes partnership easier. SOC 2 Type II is recognized across industries as a universal standard based on proven security practices. For organizations in higher education, professional certification, industrial training, and corporate learning evaluating a proctoring vendor, SOC 2 certification provides independent confirmation that Integrity Advocate's security controls meet the standard their own compliance teams require.

The Partners Behind the Process

Throughout the certification process, Integrity Advocate worked closely with auditors from the Johanson Group, whose expertise guided the audit with transparent communication and a shared commitment to rigorous standards. Integrity Advocate also leveraged Carbide as its security platform to support the process.

What This Means for Clients and Partners

For Integrity Advocate clients and partners, SOC 2 Type II certification is straightforward confirmation that the platform handling your learners' data meets independently verified security standards. It sits alongside Integrity Advocate's 12-plus years of operation with zero data breaches and 98% client retention as part of a consistent track record, not a single credential.

For more information about how Integrity Advocate handles data security and privacy, visit the Privacy page.

{{post-cta}}

AI is changing the world of online continuing education in so many different ways.

IACET standards provide a useful framework for navigating these changes, but ultimately it is up to accredited organizations to ensure their learning events meet requirements. In November, 2024, we sat down with IACET president Randy Bowman to discuss the changing landscape of continuing education and — in particular — the impact AI and GPT plugins are having on online assessments.

Topics We Covered:

1. How emerging technologies, including AI/GPT, can compromise the integrity of standards and accreditation processes, and why existing controls may be insufficient for combatting them.
2. How to meet IACET/ANSI standard section 8.1 guidance for verifying learner identity, both in person and online.
3. How to ensure genuine participation in learning events and document due diligence around these efforts
4. What’s at stake when training doesn’t meet IACET standards: how recent court cases have shifted the conversation around liability

We've embedded some highlights below. You can also watch the full presentation at https://www.iacet.org/events/archived-webinars/ (registration is required, though viewing the presentation is free once you've created an account).

GPT 'Study Aid' Plugins — How They Work

Are GPT Plugins Consuming Test Questions?

Online vs. In-Person Learning Events: Ensuring a Consistent Level of Integrity

Is it Possible to Completely AI-proof an Online Exam?

Bonus for IACET-accredited firms — get our compliance guidance for IACET standard 8.1:

{{post-cta}}