Yes — and it's documented, not theoretical. In 2026 the Office of the Independent Adjudicator upheld a complaint from an autistic student accused on the strength of a detector score and later cleared.
Detectors score predictability, so consistent structure, precise repeated terminology and even sentence rhythm all raise the number. That's a property of the tool, not evidence about the writer.
Why these writing patterns score high
A detector asks one question of every word: how expected was that, given what came before? Writing that is internally consistent produces a lot of expected words. Several features common in autistic and ADHD writing — and several explicitly taught by university study-skills services — do exactly that:
- Precise, repeated terminology. Using the same correct term each time rather than varying it for style. Academically better; statistically more predictable.
- Explicit, consistent structure. Clear topic sentences, uniform paragraph shape, visible signposting — often a deliberate scaffold that makes a long piece manageable.
- Even sentence rhythm. Consistent length and construction, sometimes a deliberate strategy for clarity.
- Literal, unhedged phrasing. Direct statement without idiom or rhetorical flourish.
Structured writing templates are frequently recommended through disability support and study-skills provision. A student can follow the strategy their university gave them and be flagged by software the same university runs.
Where the evidence stands in 2026
HEPI published twice over the summer of 2026 on the fairness gap in AI detection, concluding that a detector score should never be sufficient evidence of misconduct on its own. The OIA cases that year involved both non-native English speakers and a neurodivergent student. The pattern across them is the same: the tool produced a number, the number was treated as evidence, and the finding didn't survive scrutiny.
The wider reliability picture is the same one everyone faces — a Stanford study found roughly 61% of essays by non-native English speakers wrongly flagged — but the groups affected overlap and compound.
If you're accused
The general steps apply — ask what the allegation is, request the report, freeze your drafts, involve your students' union. Two additions specific to this situation:
- Your support arrangements are relevant context. If you have a support plan, a study-skills adviser, or were taught a structured writing method, say so. You are not obliged to disclose a diagnosis, and you can raise the writing-style point without one.
- Ask about reasonable adjustments to the process itself. A misconduct meeting is a stressful, socially demanding, often unclear situation. Adjustments to how it's conducted — written questions in advance, a supporter present, extra time — are a normal request, and disability services can help you make it.
Keeping drafts and version history in one continuously-edited document remains the single most useful protection, because it replaces an argument about writing style with a record of the work happening.
SafeGrade shows you which passages read as machine-like and why — so nothing arrives as a surprise. Private, never stored, never used for training.
Run one free scan →No card. No catch. First scan free.