Faculty activity reporting where agents prefill the year from campus systems, every line cited, and faculty confirm and sign
Faculty confirm a prefilled year in minutes, with every line tied to its source.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Faculty Activity Reporting prefills each faculty member's annual activity report, with courses, publications, grants and service, from the campus systems that already hold them, every line cited to its source. Agents merge duplicates, credit grants by the award's split and hold any claim with no source; the faculty member confirms and signs, the chair reviews and the associate dean approves. Only approved lines then feed promotion records, accreditation faculty tables and the state faculty workload report.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Faculty activity reporting is the yearly report every faculty member files on the courses they taught, what they published, the grants they won and the committees they served on. Department chairs read it for the annual evaluation, deans approve it, and the same lines feed promotion and tenure records, the business and engineering schools' accreditation faculty tables and, in states that ask for faculty workload by statute, the state faculty workload report.
Today faculty retype most of it, although six campus systems already hold it. The same paper arrives as a preprint and as a journal article; one talk arrives from two feeds; a $1.2M award with three investigators is listed in full by each; keynotes and awards are typed from memory with nothing behind them. The workload agreement sits in a separate document, so a variance is noticed, if at all, at the chair's review, and institutional research rebuilds the faculty tables from the reports by hand each fall.
Estimated hours per report, by hand and with the agents. The faculty member's 'after' rows add up to about the 6 minutes seen in the working solution; the rest is our arithmetic, kept modest.
Eight agents prefill each year from six systems, merge duplicates, split grant credit and hold unsourced claims; chairs review and deans approve.
Wednesday, June 3, 2026, day 17 of Halden State University's six-week window. Dr. Marcus Feld, Associate Professor of Marketing, opens his 2025–26 report. Here is what happens to it, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Forty-seven lines in four sections, Courses and advising, Scholarship, Grants and Service: 37 from six campus systems and 10 from his past reports and CV. A thin bar compares his workload agreement, Teaching 40, Research 40, Service 20, with the effort from the lines, 38, 44 and 18, within the 5-point tolerance. Four agent findings sit on top, and each line has Confirm or Correct beside it.
“Your 2025–26 activity, prefilled from 6 systems.”
A course line opens the record it came from, which agent put it there and with what confidence. The student information system lists him at 100% on MKTG 3300 section 002; his co-instructor Dr. Lena Ortiz reported on May 27 that it was co-taught 50/50, and the chair's assignment memo agrees. The correction goes to the Registrar's office, which owns the record, and he can still sign.
The agents found 50 items and the report has 47 lines. A preprint was merged with its version of record in the Journal of Retail Analytics (confidence 0.98), one talk arrived from the publication database and the conference program (0.95), and the College Research Committee came from the roster and the HR service record (0.99). He can keep any merge or split it apart with a reason.
Merges only at 0.90 or above; below that, the faculty member is asked.
Award HSU-SP-25-0417, $1,200,000 over three years, is credited 50 / 30 / 20 by the routing form all three investigators signed: $360,000 to Dr. Feld. His 1.0 summer month is committed and charged, matching payroll. Listed in full under each investigator, the award would count three times, $3.6M.
The agent never changes a split: a request goes to Sponsored Programs, and the principal investigator must agree.
A keynote at the Regional Independent Grocers Summit came from his CV with nothing behind it, so the agent held it at 5:04 a.m. and asked for the invitation or the program. He attaches the invitation letter; the agent finds “keynote address” and “April 14, 2026” and releases the line at confidence 0.96, above the 0.90 threshold.
He stays Scholarly Academic through 2026–27: 4 contributions in the 2021–22 to 2025–26 window against 3 needed, 3 of them peer-reviewed against 2 needed, under the College of Business policy FQ-3. An accepted article is not counted until it is published. The college stands at 46% Scholarly Academic against 40% needed.
Provisional until the associate dean approves the report.
He uses Confirm all on each section and signs with an attestation. All 47 lines are confirmed, the keynote is released with its letter, and the co-teaching correction is still with the Registrar's office, which does not block signing. The report moves to his chair.
“I confirm that these 47 lines describe my 2025–26 activity accurately, and that the documents attached are genuine.”
Of her 31 reports, 10 are signed and waiting. The Review agent's summary of Dr. Feld's report shows effort 38 / 44 / 18 against 40 / 40 / 20, three peer-reviewed articles, up from two, a book chapter, a Best Paper Award and the $1.2M award at 30%, each cited. It drafts Teaching Exceeds, Research Exceeds, Service Meets and a comment; she changes what she wants and approves the same afternoon.
The Review agent never rates or approves; the chair writes the final comment.
In the College of Business, 24 chair-reviewed reports are waiting and 18 have no flags; those can be approved together. A flagged report, such as effort 55 / 30 / 15 against 40 / 40 / 20 or a split change Sponsored Programs has not decided, is read first or returned to the chair with a reason.
The Report agent builds four outputs from approved reports only: the state faculty workload report for 3,400 faculty, due October 15, the College of Business faculty qualifications table, the engineering faculty tables and promotion and tenure activity sections for 186 candidates. Dana Whitcomb requests release; Dr. Celia Moran, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, certifies and releases.
Whoever requests a release cannot release it.
The same report, seen by the people who carry it through the cycle: what their year looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents prefill each year from six systems, merge duplicates, split grant credit and hold unsourced claims; chairs review and deans approve.
Reads six campus systems and the past report and CV, and writes one line per activity with its source.
Finds the same activity from two sources by version-of-record links, title and author match and dates, and merges it, showing the evidence.
Applies co-PI and co-instructor splits from routing forms and the chair's teaching assignments, and links co-investigators' reports.
Holds claims with no source, asks for the specific evidence and reads what is attached.
Computes effort by area from the lines, compares it with the workload agreement under Faculty Workload Policy FA-12 and checks grant effort against payroll.
Computes each faculty member's accreditation category from cited contributions in the five-year window, under the college's qualification policy.
Summarizes each signed report for the chair, with citations: what changed, variances and pending items. Drafts ratings and a comment for the chair to change.
Builds the state workload report, the accreditation faculty tables and promotion activity sections from approved lines only.
Confirm, review, approve. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Faculty and chairs can ask about any line, report or rule in plain words. Every answer points to the record, form or policy it rests on, and opens the screen that shows it.
What did the agents change in my report, and why?
Four things, each one yours to undo. The Dedupe agent merged 3 duplicates: your preprint with its journal version, one talk listed twice and one committee in two systems. The Credit agent credited the $1.2M award at 30%, from the routing form. The Checker agent held the keynote: no invitation or program on file. The Workload agent shows effort 38 / 44 / 18 against 40 / 40 / 20.
Why is the $1.2M grant credited at 30%?
Because that is the split all three investigators signed. The routing form allocates credit 50 / 30 / 20, so $360,000 is credited to you, Marketing and the College of Business, and the award is counted once, not three times. Your 1.0 summer month matches payroll. If the split is wrong, a change can go to Sponsored Programs; Dr. Raman must agree.
Am I still Scholarly Academic?
Yes, through 2026–27. The college's rule asks for 3 contributions in 5 years, 2 of them peer-reviewed. You have 4: the 2022 article in Consumer Markets Review, two articles this year and the book chapter. The accepted article counts when it is published. It stays provisional until Dr. Vance approves your report.
Which Marketing reports need me this week?
Signed reports waiting for your review, due within 14 days of signing. Dr. Sophie Lambert: Service 34 against 20 agreed. Dr. Mateo Ruiz: Teaching 52 against 40 agreed. Craig Holm: 1 claim held for evidence. Dr. Lena Ortiz: a correction pending with the Registrar's office. 9 colleagues have not started; I can remind them.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The cycle, the workload and credit rules and the agents' thresholds are settings. A change saves a new version and is logged.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting window | 42 days · May 18 – June 29, 2026 | Every report prefilled before it opens |
| Reminders | 14, 7 and 2 days before | The last one copied to the chair |
| Chair review · associate dean approval | 14 days each | A missed review escalates to the associate dean after 3 days |
| Record owners answer a correction | 5 business days | Registrar, Sponsored Programs, Human resources |
| Workload tolerance | 5 points | Above it, the chair is asked to discuss the variance |
| Grant credit from the routing form | On | Co-PI splits follow the investigator to the department and college |
| Evidence required | Keynotes and invited talks, awards and honors, editorial roles, media and practitioner pieces, community service | A line without it is held by the Checker agent |
| Keep reports and their sources | 10 years after a faculty member leaves | Redact employee ID, salary and home address on every export |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
"demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest (the hours split). Regulations named as context: FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99; state faculty workload statutes such as Texas Education Code §51.402 and Ohio Revised Code §3345.45. Halden State University, its colleges, sponsors and journals, and the people named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Faculty Activity Reporting prefills each faculty member's annual activity report, with courses, publications, grants and service, from the campus systems that already hold them, every line cited to its source. Agents merge duplicates, credit grants by the award's split and hold any claim with no source; the faculty member confirms and signs, the chair reviews and the associate dean approves. Only approved lines then feed promotion records, accreditation faculty tables and the state faculty workload report.
The Harvest agent reads the student information system, the learning management system, the grants system, publication databases, committee rosters and the human capital management system, plus the faculty member's past reports and CV, and writes one line per activity with its source. In the working solution, 37 of Dr. Feld's 47 lines came from six systems and 10 from his past reports and CV. Every line opens its source passage.
The Credit agent reads the routing form the investigators signed and credits each one's share; a $1.2M award split 50 / 30 / 20 credits $360,000 to the 30% co-PI, so the college counts the award once. The agent never changes a split: a request goes to Sponsored Programs and needs the principal investigator's agreement.
Yes. The Workload agent computes effort by area from the lines and compares it with the faculty member's workload agreement, for example 38 / 44 / 18 against 40 / 40 / 20, and checks grant effort against payroll. Above the tolerance, 5 points by default, the chair is asked to discuss the variance. The agent never rates performance.
Yes, from approved reports only. The Report agent builds the state faculty workload report, the business school's faculty qualifications table, engineering faculty tables and promotion and tenure activity sections. The Director of Institutional Research requests release and the vice provost certifies and releases; whoever requests a release cannot release it.
No. Course, advising and committee lines show counts only, for example 64 students and 41 evaluation responses on a section, under FERPA. Every view of a report or a source is logged, and exports redact employee ID, salary and home address.
Yes. The faculty member confirms or corrects every line and signs; the chair rates and writes the final comment; the associate dean approves; the office that owns a record decides any correction to it. Agents never sign, rate, approve, change a split or write to a system of record, and every override carries a reason code.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your workload and qualification policies and a sample of past annual reports, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own reports first.
Every case reaches its committee complete, on the criteria in force, every letter tested.
1-min demoFaculty Search & Hiring ComplianceEvery screen-out reason tied to the posting, and no equivalency request left unread.
1-min demoEducator Certification & Out-of-Field Assignment AuditEvery section tied to the credential that authorizes it, fixed before the state looks.
1-min demoWe'll run Faculty Activity Reporting on a sample of your own activity data and workload policy.