Accreditation management software that puts a current source under every sentence of the self-study, and reads it as a visiting team would
No uncited sentence reaches the accreditor, and likely findings are answered first.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Accreditation Management is accreditation management software in which accreditation liaisons map evidence to standards and draft cited self-study narratives. Seven agents tag every document to the standards it supports, draft narratives with a current source under every sentence, recount every number from the system of record and write the findings a visiting team would expect. Standard owners sign, the liaison officer approves, and the Provost signs the final report.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Accreditation management software exists for one hard job: showing an accreditor, standard by standard, that the institution does what it says, and proving every claim with a document. At a public research university that means about 90 standards and requirements, thousands of policies, minutes, syllabi and assessment reports, and hundreds of contributors, often with programmatic reviews for law, nursing, engineering and business and a substantive change in the same cycle.
Today the evidence is gathered by hand. Contributors email PDFs, a coordinator renames them and links them to standards in a template, and owners write narratives in a word processor. A narrative says "every program assessed its outcomes" because last year's summary said so, and nobody recounts. A handbook revised in 2025 is cited in its 2022 edition. The off-site committee checks, writes a finding, and the institution spends months on a focused report. Accreditation Management gives the Accreditation Liaison Officer seven agents that read, map, recount and check, so people spend their time deciding and signing.
Estimated split of a reaffirmation self-study's working weeks for the liaison office, by hand and with the agents. Our arithmetic, kept modest; the live solution measures it.
Seven agents map, draft, recount, review and chase evidence; owners sign, the liaison approves and the Provost signs.
Halden State University's Compliance Certification is due March 15, 2027. Last night Dr. Carla Whitmore revised Standard 8.2, student outcomes. Here is what happens to it on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Dr. Renata Okafor opens to 145 days left, 90 standards, 2,814 evidence documents and 352 contributors. The agents' overnight note says 17 cited documents have a newer version, 43 new tags wait to be confirmed and 6 requests are overdue. The first next step is to review Standard 8.2.
12 sentences on 5 standards have no current source.
Standard 8.2 has 8 sentences and 16 sources. The ribbon under each sentence is thick for three or more current sources, medium for two, thin for one, and broken for none. Selecting sentence 1 opens its three sources on the right, with the supporting passages highlighted: the 2025–26 program list of 212 programs, Academic Assessment Policy AP-4.1 and the 2026–27 catalogs.
Renata runs the Peer-Reviewer, which reads the draft as an off-site committee member would and asks the Data Check agent to recount. Sentence 3 says "Every degree program assessed its learning outcomes in 2025." The assessment repository holds a 2025 report for 201 of 212 programs, the cited summary counts plans as well as reports, and the ribbon breaks.
An off-site committee would likely find the institution out of compliance with 8.2 or ask for a focused report.
The Drafting agent proposes the new sentence beside the old one, cited to the repository's 2025 report count and the follow-up requests. Renata can accept, edit or reject it. She accepts, with the reason code "claim corrected to the record".
201 of 212 programs assessed their outcomes in 2025; the remaining 11 have plans due March 1.
The Requests agent drafts one request per program with no 2025 report, each naming the chair and the last report year, due March 1, 2027. Nothing goes out until Renata approves. Reminders follow on days 3 and 6, and the dean is told on day 7 without a reply.
Sentence 7 cites the 2022 Core Curriculum Assessment Plan, which the 2025 edition replaced. The meaning is unchanged, so the agent proposes the re-cite and Renata approves it. The Faculty Handbook is different: post-tenure review moved from every six years to every five, so it goes to its owner instead.
With every sentence on a current source, Dr. Whitmore signs Standard 8.2 as its owner and Renata approves it as the checker: 25 of 90 standards approved. The Provost's signature stays disabled until all 90 are approved, the pack is sealed and no ribbon is broken.
You may not sign as an owner; Dr. Carla Whitmore may not approve this section.
The same mock review runs on every standard: 28 findings open across 24 standards, grouped as likely findings, questions and suggestions. Among the likely ones, 41 instructors under 6.2 show "qualifications on file" with no justification, and the two off-campus sites have had no facilities review since 2021. Each can be assigned to its owner or dismissed with a reason code.
The Packaging agent builds the pack: 90 narratives, 2,814 documents, a sentence-to-source index and 412 student work files de-identified, then seals it. Release takes Renata and the Vice Provost, Dr. Martin Ellery. The audit trail beside it shows each step of the morning, by people and agents.
Progress for Dr. Howard Lindqvist comes down to a few numbers: 25 of 90 standards approved, 12 sentences with no current source, 88% of requests on time. Sentences with a broken ribbon fell from 148 on August 24 to 12 on October 21. The Drafting agent writes the status note with citations, and Renata sends it.
The same reaffirmation, seen by the five people who carry it: what their cycle looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents map, draft, recount, review and chase evidence; owners sign, the liaison approves and the Provost signs.
Tags every policy, syllabus, set of minutes and assessment report to the standards it supports, with the passage and a confidence, across the institutional and programmatic reviews.
Writes and rewrites narratives in the owner's voice from the mapped evidence, and rewrites a claim to what the record shows when it is not supported.
Recomputes every number in a narrative from the system of record, such as the count of programs with a 2025 assessment report.
Reads each narrative as an off-site committee member would and writes the findings, questions and suggestions it expects, each tied to one sentence, with the evidence it checked.
Watches document versions, flags evidence a newer version replaced, and tells meaning unchanged from meaning changed.
Drafts requests to contributors for what is missing, tracks the reply window, reminds and escalates.
Builds the Compliance Certification and the visiting team's pack, de-identifies student work and seals the pack.
Sign, approve, sign once. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers with citations and opens the screen it is talking about. It drafts; a person sends.
Which standards could draw a finding at the off-site review?
The Peer-Reviewer expects 8 likely findings on 6 standards. The heaviest: 6.2, 41 instructors with "qualifications on file" and no justification; 13.7, no facilities review at the two off-campus sites since 2021; 4.3, board disclosures cited for 2024 only; 10.4, bylaws cited are from 2017.
Why would sentence 3 of Standard 8.2 draw a finding?
It says every degree program assessed its outcomes in 2025. The assessment repository holds a 2025 report for 201 of 212 programs. The summary it cites counts "a plan or report", and the January minutes note reports outstanding.
Which cited documents are out of date?
17 documents have a newer version, cited in 23 sentences. 12 keep their meaning and can be re-cited, such as the Core Curriculum Assessment Plan. 5 changed, such as the Faculty Handbook, where post-tenure review moved from six years to five; those go to their owners.
Draft the status note for the Provost
Drafted from the progress numbers, with a citation on each claim. It is on the Progress screen for you to read and send; nothing goes to Dr. Lindqvist until you do.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The rules every narrative is held to are settings, versioned and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| A strong ribbon needs | 3 current sources | Two is medium, one is thin, none is broken |
| A source is current for | 36 months | From its date, unless a newer version replaced it sooner |
| A broken ribbon blocks a signature | On | Locked; only the administrator, with the Vice Provost |
| How the Peer-Reviewer reads | As an off-site committee member would | Strict: every number recounted · Light: likely findings only |
| Contributors reply within | 10 business days | Reminders on days 3 and 6; the dean is told on day 7 |
| Owners sign | 30 days before the deadline | Before the Compliance Certification is due |
| Small counts | Suppressed under 10 students | Applies to every recount |
| Retention | 10 years after the decision | The visiting team's pack expires 90 days after the visit |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: Texas A&M University-Commerce, SACSCOC On-Site Visit Handbook, January 2024, etamu.edu (about 177,000 words and 2,374 pieces of evidence for 72 standards in its last compliance certification; a 10-member on-site team) · 34 CFR Part 602 (recognition of accrediting agencies) and 34 CFR Part 99 (FERPA) · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. Halden State University and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Accreditation Management is accreditation management software in which accreditation liaisons map evidence to standards and draft cited self-study narratives. Seven agents tag every document to the standards it supports, draft narratives with a current source under every sentence, recount every number from the system of record and write the findings a visiting team would expect. Standard owners sign, the liaison officer approves, and the Provost signs the final report.
It is the document, often called a compliance certification or self-study, in which an institution argues standard by standard that it meets its accreditor's requirements and proves each claim with evidence. In Accreditation Management each standard's narrative is read sentence by sentence, and a ribbon under every sentence shows how many current sources support it.
The Peer-Reviewer agent reads each narrative as an off-site committee member would and writes expected findings, questions and suggestions, each tied to one sentence. It asks the Data Check agent to recount any number from the system of record. In the working solution, that is how "every degree program" became 201 of 212 programs.
The Currency agent compares each cited document with its newest version. When the meaning is unchanged it proposes a re-cite for a person to approve; when the meaning changed, the sentence goes to its owner. A source counts as current for 36 months unless a newer version replaced it sooner, and that window is a setting.
Yes. The Mapping agent tags documents across the institutional standards and the programmatic standard sets, and a crosswalk shows which documents each review reuses. The substantive change prospectus is drafted from the same evidence, with the same ribbons.
Student work used as evidence is de-identified before any agent reads it: names, student IDs, emails and faces in images. Counts under 10 students are suppressed, student work sits in a restricted folder, and the administrator cannot open it.
Yes. Agents propose and people decide: every rewrite is accepted, edited or rejected with a reason code, every request is approved before it is sent, and agents never sign, approve or mark a standard compliant. The owner signs, the liaison officer approves as the checker, and the visiting team's pack is released by two people.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your accreditor's standards, your current narratives and a sample of your evidence, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own standards first.
Every survey cell rebuilt from source, every variance explained before lock.
1-min demoFaculty CredentialingEvery section cleared before the term starts, with every credential tied to its proof.
1-min demoAcademic Program ReviewEach program review assembled in two days, not six weeks, every figure cited.
1-min demoWe'll run Accreditation Management on one of your standards, its narrative and its evidence.