You know the grade. What you don't have time to do is prove it criterion by criterion. checkb.tech finds the evidence gaps in seconds. You confirm, dismiss, or act.
One paragraph needs a closer look before this grade is signed off.
Follow one script — Dylan Cooper’s, Unit 3 Personal & Business Finance, Pearson set assignment Part A — through the same steps you’d run tonight. Nothing here is pre-recorded; every screen is the real flow.
Start the evening: name the batch after your class group — Y13 Business A — and set the cohort. Every script, verdict and note the group generates stays together for moderation.
Pick the unit — here, Unit 3 Personal & Business Finance — then the Pearson set assignment your centre follows, Part A. The criteria load straight from the specification: P1 through D1, watched from the first read.
Drop the folder in as students submitted it — word-processed reports, PDFs, slide decks. Each file goes up over a secure link and lands against the right name on the roster.
Dylan’s verdict is back in seconds: P1 met, M1 partly met, D1 not met — each one quoting his own script. You confirm, dismiss, or write your own note; the IV sheet builds itself as you go.
Every verdict maps to one criterion — met, partly met, not met — and quotes the exact line of student work behind it. Same evidence and same settings always give the same verdict, so a re-check costs nothing. The IV record keeps your sign-off trail, and the app never awards the grade.
“M1 is only partly met — you describe the variance on page 4 but don’t analyse the cause.” Drafts quote the student’s own script per criterion, so resubmissions target the right gap. Send as-is, copy for email, or pull the CSV for your tracking sheet.
P1 — met. Your budget is complete and arithmetic checks out.
M1 — partly met. You describe the variances (p.4 ¶2) but don’t yet analyse the cause. Cited: overspend on transport vs plan.
D1 — not met. No justification of choices yet — see the prompt in your action list.
Leads and internal verifiers see every cohort at once: which groups are on track, which scripts carry open flags, where each batch sits in two-tier sign-off — assessor checked, IV pending. Staff sign in with school accounts, and the seat count stays in one place.
Every document is screened before you spend an evening on it: AI-generation signals, provenance, style drift against the student’s earlier work. Where the picture looks off, you get viva questions ready-made — so the integrity conversation happens before grades do.
“Talk me through how you built the cash-flow forecast — what changed after week 2?”
This wasn’t built by a team guessing at what verification involves. It was built by a real BTEC IV.
Pick one class group for your next marking round. The authenticity checker is free, and you can read the verdicts beside the evidence before your centre changes how it works.