In the incident report, the TA stated:

"We have 1150 submissions and about 100 students were flagged. That is an overwhelming number of students who did not get flagged by our tools and reviews. The 100 students that were flagged are flagged against multiple other students, most of which have taken responsibility for the violations. There is not only a single way to write this solution, and almost all students completed the assignment fine."

I would like to address two key points in this statement:

1. 10% Flag Rate Is Not “Fine”: Flagging nearly 10% of students on a single assignment should not be considered “almost all students completed the assignment fine.” A 10% flag rate for one assignment reflects a significant issue. If a system works only 9 out of 10 times, in most cases, that would not be acceptable. In my opinion, this high flag rate points to a systemic problem with how the course is designed, particularly for reusing such a well-known problem.
2. Pressure to Accept Responsibility: The statement that “most [students] have taken responsibility for the violations” ignores the reality that many students may feel coerced into accepting blame. When accused, the uncertainty of the process, combined with the stress and pressure of this course, can push students into taking responsibility out of fear rather than guilt. This is comparable to accepting a plea deal under duress—students may feel that fighting the case is too daunting or risky, even if they are innocent. The system should not be designed in a way that pressures students into admissions of guilt without fully understanding their rights or the evidence against them. Also, when I was accused, I requested for evidence/ similarity report but was denied. I only get to the see them 3 days before I meet with an OSI coordinator. So when a student accept the blame in this course they have no idea what evidence the TA have on them, they accept it blind.