A research misconduct investigation where agents keep the clocks, the custody chain and the notices, and people keep every judgment
Every deadline met, every sequestered item verified nightly, the record ready on demand.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Research Misconduct Inquiry & Investigation runs a research misconduct investigation from the first allegation to the institutional record sent to the federal office, for research integrity officers. Seven agents do the clerical and forensic work: they test each allegation, compute every deadline under 42 CFR Part 93, re-hash every sequestered digital item each night, keep a cited chronology and draft every notice. The research integrity officer administers, counsel checks, the committee finds and the Deciding Official decides.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
A research misconduct investigation runs on clocks, custody and notices as much as on evidence. Under the revised 42 CFR Part 93, which applies to allegations received from January 1, 2026, the research integrity officer assesses each allegation of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, sequesters the research records on or before notifying the respondent, completes the inquiry within 90 days, begins any investigation within 30 days of deciding it is warranted, finishes it in 180 days, asks for every extension in writing with the reasons, and sends the federal office an institutional record with a single index.
Most offices keep those clocks in calendars, the hash values in a spreadsheet nobody re-checks, and the evidence in binders where facts and the complainant's allegations blur. Nobody watches the live lab folder after the copy is taken, although altering records after notice can itself be evidence. A late notice or a broken chain of custody can undo a finding, and the institutional record is assembled by hand for weeks after the decision. Research Misconduct Inquiry & Investigation puts seven agents on that clerical and forensic work, so the research integrity officer administers and the committee judges.
Estimated split of a research integrity office's working days on one inquiry, by hand and with the agents. The record row uses the demo university's own estimate of about three weeks after the decision; our arithmetic, kept modest. Two people still take every custody move and a person still decides every step.
Seven agents keep the clocks, the custody chain, the chronology and the notices; people make every finding and decision.
Case RIO-2026-007 at Halden State University: three allegations against Dr. Julian Marsh, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, about western blot figures in a 2025 article and an NIH renewal application. Here is one morning of the inquiry in the working solution.
The agents re-hashed 41 digital items across 5 cases between 2:00 and 2:31 a.m., found one file in a live lab folder changed after sequestration, and drafted an inquiry extension. Four numbers sit under the brief: 11 open matters, 2 clocks projected late, 74 items in custody and 6 things that need her.
RIO-2026-007 runs across the top as assessment, inquiry, investigation and institutional decision. Assessment took 18 days; the inquiry is on day 47 of 90, due December 3, and the Clock agent has marked its projected finish of December 9 on the rail. Under the rail sits the custody log of 14 sequestered items; beside it, which party received which notice, and when.
Inquiry, day 47 of 90 · due December 3 · projected December 9
The Custody agent re-hashed 10 of 10 digital items on the case, including the sequestered server copy SRV-01 (41,206 files, 1.8 TB): all unchanged. Comparing the live blots_final folder with the sequestration manifest, the Evidence agent found one file, fig4B_actin_lanes2-5.tif, changed from 18.2 to 18.4 MB on August 27, 2026 at 10:14 p.m., two days after the copy finished on August 25 at 9:52 a.m. It escalated to Dr. Osei-Lind at 2:06 a.m.
The agents will not say who changed the file, or why.
Every statement in the escalation carries a citation. Clicking it opens the lab data storage audit log at the line itself: 2026-08-27 22:14:31, MODIFY, blots_final/fig4B_actin_lanes2-5.tif, under the lab's shared administrator account, which five people can use.
Dr. Osei-Lind and the forensic examiner secure the live folder as it stands now, witnessed by Danielle Whitcombe, the case coordinator. The copy is hashed and logged as item 15, SRV-02, and the Notice agent drafts the notice to the respondent at once.
The notice of additional sequestration and duty to preserve to Dr. Julian Marsh is drafted from template RN-5 v3, prepared by Dr. Osei-Lind and checked by counsel, with 7 of 7 required elements ticked and cited. It states facts and no conclusion, and the person who prepared it cannot send it.
The e-signature receipt sits on the inquiry rail at day 47. The custody log now holds 15 items, 4 physical and 11 digital, and the Clock agent still projects December 9, six days past 90, with the extension memo ready for review.
The chronology runs from the March 12, 2024 blot run to the October 2026 search, with each entry cited to a notebook page, an email or a log line and tagged to allegation A1, A2 or A3. The agents also search for what is missing: for Figure 4C, they searched the three notebooks, the electronic notebook and the imager log and found three runs, no others.
The agents keep these apart and do not weigh which account is right; the committee does.
The request to extend the inquiry to December 18 reaches his desk with the numbers side by side: today day 47, projected day 96, requested day 105, the work still scheduled from the case calendar, and the reason paragraph that goes into the inquiry report. He approves or returns it with a reason, and signs.
The morning is on the audit trail: the forensic copy SRV-02, counsel's check of the notice, the e-signature receipt at 10:06 a.m., the extension submitted, and the agents' overnight runs, each with its reason and evidence. It filters by person, agent or case and exports as CSV or a sealed package.
The same case, seen by the five people who carry it: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents keep the clocks, the custody chain, the chronology and the notices; people make every finding and decision.
Reads each allegation and tests it against the definition, federal support (NIH and NSF) and the six-year limit, each test cited, and drafts the assessment memo.
Computes every deadline from the receipt and initiation dates under the rule that applies, projects each finish from the work still scheduled, and drafts the extension memo or the federal request 21 days ahead.
Inventories sequestered items, hashes each digital item with SHA-256, re-checks every hash each night and keeps the chain of custody.
Compares each live source with its sequestration manifest, and builds the cited chronology with facts, allegations and the respondent's account kept apart.
Drafts each required notice to the respondent, the complainant, witnesses and the committee with its required elements, and tracks every receipt.
Prepares interview questions grounded in the evidence, transcribes recordings, links statements to the chronology and tracks each interviewee's corrections.
Keeps the institutional record as one single index while the case runs, and builds sealed, redacted exports for the federal office, auditors and counsel.
Administer and decide. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The research integrity officer can ask about any case, item or notice. Every answer cites its source, and the decision stays with a person.
What changed in blots_final, and what will the agents not say?
One file of 41,206. The sequestered copy SRV-01 re-hashed unchanged tonight. In the live folder, fig4B_actin_lanes2-5.tif was modified on August 27, 2026 at 10:14 p.m., from 18.2 to 18.4 MB, two days after the copy finished on August 25 at 9:52 a.m. The storage log records the lab's shared administrator account, which five people can use. The agents will not say who changed it or why; whether it is evidence is for the committee.
Will the inquiry on RIO-2026-007 finish in time?
Not on the current plan. Day 47 of 90 today; the deadline is December 3. With interviews October 23 to 28, a 9-day forensic comparison of SRV-02 with SRV-01, committee drafting November 2 to 24 and the respondent's 10-day comment, the Clock agent projects December 9, day 96. An extension to December 18 is drafted; only Dr. Anton Rasmussen may approve it.
Should RIO-2026-019 go to an inquiry?
That is your call; here is what the Intake agent found. It alleges fabrication of 36 contact-angle values, with no goniometer sessions booked from March to May 2026. Support is NIH R21 EB219904 and NSF CBET-2318840, so both federal rules apply. What is missing: the goniometer log itself.
Why is the notice worded this way?
It follows template RN-5 v3. It names the records taken and when, states the reason with no conclusion, offers a copy or supervised access, sets the duty to preserve and repeats the confidentiality rule. Counsel checks it before it is sent.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The deadlines the rule sets are fixed; the office's own choices are settings, saved as a new version of the office rules and approved by the research integrity officer before they apply.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Rule applied | Chosen by the date an allegation is received | Revised Part 93 from January 1, 2026; the 2005 rule before |
| Inquiry, investigation start, investigation, report to the federal office | 90, 30, 180 and 30 days | Set by the rule; not editable |
| Respondent's comment on the draft inquiry report | 10 days | 5 to 30 days, by office policy |
| Assessment target | 30 days | 10 to 60 days; the rule says "promptly" |
| Warn before a deadline | 21 days | 7 to 45 days; the extension is drafted at the warning |
| Escalate to the Deciding Official | 14 days | 3 to 30 days, or when a projection passes the deadline |
| Keep the record and sequestered evidence | 7 years after the proceeding | At least 7 years; legal hold on every open case |
| Identities in every export | Masked as C-1, W-1 | Need-to-know matrix per role; FERPA for student witnesses |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: 42 CFR Part 93, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, final rule of September 17, 2024, applying to allegations received from January 1, 2026 (§93.106 confidentiality, §93.220 institutional record, §93.305 sequestration, §93.307 inquiry, §93.310–93.311 investigation, §93.318 retention) · Michalek et al., PLoS Medicine (2010): the direct costs of one research misconduct investigation · "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.
Research Misconduct Inquiry & Investigation runs a research misconduct investigation from the first allegation to the institutional record sent to the federal office, for research integrity officers. Seven agents do the clerical and forensic work: they test each allegation, compute every deadline under 42 CFR Part 93, re-hash every sequestered digital item each night, keep a cited chronology and draft every notice. The research integrity officer administers, counsel checks, the committee finds and the Deciding Official decides.
Under 42 CFR Part 93 a case moves through assessment, inquiry, investigation and the institutional decision. The research records are sequestered on or before the respondent is notified, the inquiry decides whether an investigation is warranted, the investigation reaches findings, and the Deciding Official decides the findings and institutional actions. The solution shows those four phases on one rail for each case, with the notices and the custody log attached.
The revised rule allows 90 days from initiation for the inquiry. An investigation must begin within 30 days of deciding it is warranted and finish in 180 days, including the draft report for comment, and extensions are requested in writing with the reasons. The Clock agent computes each deadline from the case dates, projects the finish from the work still scheduled, and drafts the extension 21 days ahead.
The revised 42 CFR Part 93 was published in September 2024 and applies to allegations received from January 1, 2026. It lengthens the inquiry to 90 days (from 60) and the investigation to 180 days (from 120), defines an institutional record with a single index, and allows sequestered copies of substantially equivalent evidentiary value. The solution applies the revised rule or the 2005 rule by the date each allegation was received.
Each sequestered digital item is hashed with SHA-256 and re-checked every night, and every custody move takes two people and a witness. The Evidence agent also compares each live source with what was sequestered, and when a file has changed it cites both timestamps without saying who changed it or why.
Yes. The agents never characterize intent, weigh credibility, write findings, decide an assessment, send a notice or change a deadline. The committee writes the findings, the Deciding Official decides with a reason and an e-signature, and counsel checks every notice to a respondent before it can be sent.
Yes, inside the rule. The respondent's comment period on the draft inquiry report, the assessment target, the warning and escalation lead times, retention, masking of identities in exports and each agent's confidence threshold are settings. Each change is saved as a new version of the office rules and applies only once the research integrity officer approves it.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your research misconduct policy and procedure, notice templates and a closed case, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own material first.
Two blind votes on every record, a person on each conflict, every number tied to its page.
1-min demoArchival Transcription & Finding AidsBacklogs described in weeks, not years, with every line approved by an archivist.
1-min demoResearch Integrity ScreeningDuplicated figures fixed before submission, not retracted after publication.
1-min demoWe'll run Research Misconduct Inquiry & Investigation on your procedure and a closed case of your own.