EDUMARK FLOW · BETAYour documents. A connected journey.
Your assessments. Your documents. One connected workflow.
Bring Word, PDF and Excel assessments into EduMark. Complete work online or in a file, review changes, and return answers and approved marks in supported original layouts. EduMark Flow Beta connects the journey, with teaching and quality assurance alongside it.
Courses, people and assessment in one place AI Beta, with human review
One assignment. Connected versions.Flow Beta
WordPDFExcel
YOUR ORIGINALAssessment brief
QuestionResponseEvidenceFeedback
Start with your materials
⇄
EEduMarkAI Beta
01
Build & reviewCheck the source, questions and evidence
02
Complete & compareWork online or bring file changes back
03
Mark & approveA person reviews the final decision
→
REVIEWED OUTPUTWork with feedback
Answers & marksSupported original locations
Check the resultReview layout and any continuations
Return approved work
Illustrated workflow. Available actions depend on assignment rules and document support. Review every generated file during beta.Explore the document journey
Trusted by the teams marking for CIPD programmes — and built for what comes next.
EDUMARK FLOWBeta
The document is part of the journey.
Your centre should be able to move between its assessment files and the platform with a clear view of what changed.
01
Bring your original
Start from a Word, PDF or Excel assessment. Keep the source alongside the draft and check questions, criteria, tables and images before publishing.
02
Choose where to work
Learners can work in EduMark or use a working copy when assignment rules allow. Upload file changes and compare the proposed updates before applying them.
03
Keep judgement with people
Markers review the evidence, work in the platform or return a marked copy, and confirm each imported change. AI suggestions remain subject to human review.
04
Return work with context
Produce work with answers and feedback in supported original locations. Review the output and any continuation pages, then approve and release the marked work.
Useful today. Review carefully during beta.
Document layouts vary. Complex images, equations, charts and embedded files may require manual review or an identified continuation. A preview is not a fidelity guarantee. Check the source and returned file before relying on the result.
Assessment setup, delivery, marking, QA and compliance evidence usually live in an LMS plus spreadsheets plus Word plus email plus a plagiarism portal. EduMark collapses the stack.
Assignment Studio
Bring your brief into a draft assessment. Review AI-generated tasks, criteria, source materials and document output before publishing.
Upload sourceAI Beta draftReview evidencePublish
Marking Workspace
Script, criteria, AI proposals with evidence, and a feedback composer in your voice — on one screen, hands on the keyboard.
QA & moderation
Sampling plans that build themselves. Marker analytics that spot drift early.
Compliance packs
EQA sample packs, appeal bundles and audit extracts in minutes, with a verifiable manifest.
Courses & learner delivery
Organise your courses and people, deliver learning, collect work and bring progress into the same assessment journey.
Marking that shows its working.
Review the learner’s original work alongside the criteria, feedback and AI suggestions. Follow the available evidence back to its source, then accept, adjust or reject the proposed judgement. AI Beta supports the reviewer; a person owns the decision.
Evidence chips link straight to the highlighted span they cite.
Violet means AI-proposed and not yet yours — accepting flips it to standard ink.
The Ask EduMark rail answers questions about any proposal by citing the script.
Nothing reaches a learner without a named human approving it. There is no setting that changes this.
app.edumark.ai/marking
Unit 5CO02 — Evidence-based practice · Jordan Example
The organisation’s absence data showed a 14% rise across Q3. I triangulated the HR dashboard figures with exit-interview themes to test whether the rise reflected engagement rather than seasonal illness.
Comparing three options against cost, speed and reversibility, I recommended a staged return-to-office pilot, presenting the trade-offs to the people-partner group.
Stakeholder feedback was mixed; I recorded objections and revised the proposal’s measurement plan accordingly.
Assessment criteria
AC 2.1 — Analyse data to inform decisionsAI · unconfirmed
Confidence: HighEvidence ¶1Evidence ¶2
AcceptAdjustReject
AC 2.2 — Evaluate options with stakeholdersApproved · you
AC 3.1 — Measure impact of the interventionNo evidence found — abstained
AI BETAYou can see what the AI touched
AI with receipts
AI Beta, clearly identified
AI can help draft and interpret. Review its suggestions against the source, especially tables, images, calculations and grading guidance.
Your data stays yours
Review the current data-processing agreement and subprocessor list for the hosting, retention and model-provider terms that apply to your workspace.
Auditable to the last click
Review decisions and their recorded history when preparing moderation or audit evidence.
app.edumark.ai/import
Uploaded: Unit-5-Assessment-Brief.docx
Task 1 — Produce a report evaluating the organisation’s use of people data…
Assessment criteria 2.1–2.3 as tabulated on page 4 of the brief.
Word count: 3,900 (±10%). Submission via centre portal by end of week 6.
Extracted fields — review each
Task 1 · Report, 3,900 wordsSource: p.2
Criteria table · 2.1–2.3Source: p.4
Deadline · week 6Confirmed · you
Bring your centre with you.
Moving an existing centre is its own journey. Review your courses, people and learning materials before anything goes live. Supported migrations from Google Classroom, Moodle, Canvas and PebblePad include validation, dry runs and a documented rollback window. Complex or historical migrations are scoped with your implementation team.
Run CIPD and professional programmes without the spreadsheet sprawl.
Briefs become structured assessments in minutes, markers work from one screen with AI doing the drudgery, and IQA sampling plans build themselves. When the EQA asks, the pack is already assembled.
No mark reaches a learner without a named human approving it. No setting changes this.
Clear data terms
Review hosting, retention and provider terms for your workspace before bringing learner data into a pilot.
Append-only audit trail
Every decision recorded by construction — appeal-ready and EQA-ready from day one.
How much marking time could you get back?
Choose your learner count and workload. See what that time could be worth.
1 learner5,000 learners
How we estimate this
We model 30 minutes to mark each submission manually, or 15 minutes with AI assistance including human review. Staff time is valued at £30 an hour.
These are illustrative assumptions, not measured EduMark savings or sector averages. Your results will depend on the work and your review process.
Hours = learners × submissions × 15 ÷ 60. Staff time value = hours × £30. This is not a cash saving and does not subtract subscription or extra usage costs.
With Core plus AI
Potential marking time back
— hours / year
Value of that staff time
— / year
Updating your estimate…
An illustration of time you could free up, not guaranteed cash savings.
Yes. EduMark Flow Beta connects supported assessment documents with the platform. Keep the original available for review, complete work online or use a versioned file when the assignment permits it, and inspect proposed changes before applying them. Document support and layout fidelity vary; pilot your own materials first.
Be live before your next marking season.
Explore the example centre today, then prove EduMark on one real cohort.