An online competition needs clear tasks, fair participation conditions and a review process that the jury can explain. The right level of monitoring can differ between an open qualifying round and a decisive final.
Start with the rules of each stage
Specify question formats, timing, attempts, permitted references and AI-use rules. Explain how scores are calculated, what evidence can support a misconduct finding and how participants can appeal.
A practice round should teach the actual access and device workflow. For participants who need accommodations, agree permitted tools and exceptions before the competition.
Choose the delivery model
Use an existing learning system with an agreed proctoring integration, or an exam platform that provides the required tasks and participant workflow. Confirm how organisers link the participant, exam and attempt across systems.
In TrustExam, question banks, groups, exam settings and invitations support assessment preparation. Teachers manually assess open written answers. Coding tasks require a configured external execution service; confirm the supported task formats during the pilot.
Configure proportionate checks
Select identity checks, cameras, screen or environment monitoring and content controls for the stage. Test the exact devices and delivery mode. More restrictions are not automatically better if they prevent permitted work or exclude participants unnecessarily.
A person entering the frame, an interrupted camera or a configuration change can warrant review. An automatic event does not establish outside assistance or intent.
Give the jury a consistent review process
Inspect the relevant recording before and after an event. Compare the evidence with the published rule, consider technical explanations and approved exceptions, and record the reason for the decision. Refer ambiguous cases for another review.
Use consistent criteria when reviewers work across regions or institutions. Keep task scores separate from integrity findings until the organiser applies the competition’s result rules.
Illustrative competition scenarios
The following examples describe possible operating models. They are not separate verified customer case studies.
School olympiad
An accessible qualifying round, a practice session and stronger controls for a final can support different objectives at each stage.
Inter-university competition
Shared rules and a consistent evidence format can help the jury while participating institutions retain different learning systems.
Scholarship selection
The final stage may call for closer identity checks and a clear appeal process because the outcome has greater consequences.
Competition involving minors
Plan understandable notices, restricted access to recordings and the required arrangements with responsible adults before launch.
Prepare support and recovery
Publish the contact route, interruption procedure and criteria for continuing or granting another attempt. Validate what the selected application saves after a connection loss; do not promise universal offline operation.
Pilot before expanding
Begin with one round and representative participants. Evaluate access failures, completion, support requests, jury workload and decisions changed on appeal. Expand based on those results rather than an untested promise of scale.
Explore the TrustExam workflow · Review signals and appeals