Everything we deliver is written for one brief and checked before release. What no service can do is control what happens to it afterwards — so the guarantee and its limits are printed side by side rather than in different sections.
Printed here rather than three sections down, because a guarantee without its exclusions is not information.
Four controls at four points, and what each one catches that the others do not.
Briefs that only work through deception — exams, proctored assessments, work about another student — are declined at checkpoint one, with nothing charged.
the cases no report could fix
On longer pieces the specialist agrees an outline and names the sources first, so the argument is theirs from the start rather than assembled afterwards.
patch-writing and source padding
The second reader checks each source exists, is current, and supports the claim — the failure a detector cannot see at all.
fabricated or misused sources
Originality and AI-detection reports run against what you receive, with the matched-source list rather than a bare percentage.
overlap you should know about
Six situations we are asked about. The answer is often “it depends on your institution” — where that is true, we say so rather than guessing for you.
Using a commissioned piece as a worked example — reading how the argument is built, then writing your own — is the use we describe in our terms and the one most integrity policies treat as legitimate study support.
What we do: Write it, attach the reports, and answer questions about how the argument works.
The great majority of academic integrity policies treat submitting third-party work as your own as an offence, regardless of who wrote it or how original it is. Our terms say the work is for reference and learning, and that you are responsible for complying with your own regulations.
What we do: Tell you this plainly, and offer editing or feedback on your own writing as an alternative.
Language editing and proofreading are widely accepted, and many universities publish their own guidance on it. The line is substantive change: rewriting arguments, adding sources or restructuring analysis usually crosses it.
What we do: Edit within the scope you set, mark anything that would change substance, and leave the decision to you.
Some group assessments permit external help on individual components; many prohibit it entirely, and some require a statement of contribution from each member. This is the case where students most often get it wrong in good faith.
What we do: Ask you what the assessment permits before quoting, and decline where the brief makes deception unavoidable.
It has a name — self-plagiarism or duplicate submission — and detectors catch it easily, because your earlier piece is usually already in the database. Being the author does not exempt you.
What we do: Write something new for the actual question, and flag any overlap with material you send us.
Examinations, proctored assessments, and anything requiring your institutional login are declined outright. We do not ask for credentials and refuse them if offered. This is the one part of the policy with no nuance in it.
What we do: Decline in one message, quickly, and point you at the resources instead.
What we will and will not do if an integrity office contacts you about work we supplied.
Usually a low single-digit figure, and that figure is mostly quotations and reference-list entries matching their sources — which is what should happen. We do not quote a target, because a number treated as a target becomes something to game rather than a measurement.
Our specialists write the work. Where a tool is used at all it is for the things tools are legitimately for — reference formatting, spelling and grammar — and never to generate argument or prose. Every delivery goes through a detector so you can see what a marker running one would see.
No. It is not sold, published, reused as a sample, or submitted to any repository. It exists for your order and stays in your account for twelve months, after which you can ask us to delete it sooner.
Two briefs on the same set question will share sources and sometimes structure, because the question constrains both. The prose is written independently for each and never reused. If you believe you have received something recycled, tell us and it is a full refund under the refund policy.
Send us the report. We will re-run our own checks on the delivered file, give you the second-read note and the audit trail, and tell you honestly what we see — including if we think the flag is justified. Detectors misfire on formal academic prose more often than their marketing admits, but we will not pretend a real problem is a false positive.
Because the alternative is a page promising things nobody can deliver — undetectable work, guaranteed safety, protection if you are caught. Every one of those promises transfers a risk to you while sounding like it removes it.
If your situation is one of the ones above that we refuse, you will be told at intake and charged nothing.