Working demo · SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation
Accreditation answers that show their sources
Browse 62 SACSCOC policy documents, upload your own catalog or handbook and ask where it falls short, then turn the answers into a multi-year improvement plan.
Every claim on screen carries the passage it came from. In accreditation work an unsourced answer is worse than no answer, so this tool is built to be checked rather than trusted.
It opens on the Standards Explorer. Nothing to sign into, nothing to configure.
- SACSCOC documents
- 62SACSCOC documents
- indexed passages
- 1,225indexed passages
- sign-ups, installs, or setup
- 0sign-ups, installs, or setup
Why this exists
The evidence exists. Finding it is the job.
Almost nothing in a reaffirmation is new work. Your institution already does the things the standards ask about. The job is proving it, in someone else’s vocabulary, across 62 policy documents that each assume you have read the other 61.
Ask a general chatbot which standard a practice runs into and it will tell you, confidently, citing a page that may not exist. For accreditation that is not a small flaw. A citation that looks right and points at the wrong document is worse than no citation at all, because nobody downstream is going to catch it. So this tool works in a specific order, and the order is the product.
You ask in plain language
No standard numbers, no search syntax. “Where does our catalog fall short on admissions?” is a perfectly good question.
It finds what bears on the question
Across all 62 documents at once, ranked so a standard that genuinely requires something rises above one that merely repeats your words.
It answers only from those passages
The sources sit beside the answer as it arrives. Where the documents do not settle the question, it says so rather than filling the space.
You check it in one click
Every citation opens the passage behind it, and every page reference opens the scanned page. If it does not say what the sentence claims, you will know at once.
And when something is wrong on our end, the tool says so rather than guessing. It will not start up if it cannot tell which document a passage came from, and it labels its own results whenever it is running in a reduced search mode.
What’s available
Three screens
They sit in this order in the tool, left to right across the tabs. Browse the standards, question a document against them, then plan the response. Any one of them stands alone, so start in the middle if you already know what you are looking for.
- 01 · Browse
Standards Explorer
The whole corpus as a hierarchy you can open: 62 documents, the fourteen sections of the Principles, and the passages underneath. Built from the packaged documents rather than typed by hand. One search box, which matches on meaning as well as wording — so a passage can rank for a question that shares none of its words. Three ways to read the result: the passages themselves, all 1,225 of them plotted as a map of the corpus, or the neighbourhood around any one passage.
What to notice
Every search hit shows its arithmetic.
baseis what the search returned,boostedis after each passage’s argument weight is applied, and the chip between them is the difference. Some rise, some fall, and the ranking changes. You watch it happen instead of taking our word for it. - 02 · Interrogate
Document Chat
Upload your own catalog, handbook, or draft self-study and ask where it falls short. Answers keep what SACSCOC requires separate from what your document actually says. That separation is the product.
What to notice
The sources panel fills before the answer starts, because retrieval has genuinely finished by then. Every
[n]in the text is a button, and clicking it lights up the card it came from. Every page reference opens the scanned page itself — page 47 of 206, as printed, not a paraphrase of it. That is the end of the audit trail, and the reason to prefer this to a chatbot that sounds equally certain. - 03 · Plan
Improvement Planner
The gaps become a multi-year board. Each card names the standard it answers to, dashed arrows show which work has to finish before other work can start, and you drag cards between year lanes to re-sequence the whole plan.
What to notice
Audit Groundingopens every passage the plan was built from, and the count sits on the button. A card citing anything outside that set is rejected by the server before it ever reaches the board, which is why the receipt is short enough to actually read.
Where to start
Ten minutes, in five moves
Nobody needs to walk you through this. The five moves below follow the tabs left to right, and each one ends in something you can see for yourself rather than something you have to believe.
See the shape of the corpus
Open the Standards Explorer. The left panel is the whole thing: 62 documents, the fourteen sections of the Principles, the Resource Manual underneath. The number on each row is how many passages sit below it. Click any row to read what is attached to it.
Watch the ranking disagree with itself
Search
quality enhancement plan. Ten passages come back, and each carriesbase, thenboosted, then the difference between them. Some passages gain, some lose, and the order is not the one raw keyword matching would have given you.Notice which arrives first
Move to Document Chat and click one of the example questions. The sources panel on the right fills in before a single word of the answer appears. That ordering is not a loading animation. Retrieval really is finished, and the answer is being written from what you can already see.
Try to catch it out
Click any
[n]inside the answer and the card it refers to lights up beside it. Then click its page reference and the scanned page opens — the actual page of the actual document, not a restatement of it. Decide for yourself whether it holds up the sentence that cited it. If you do one thing on this page, do this one. Everything else here is a claim about how this check turns out.Re-sequence a plan and read its receipt
Open the Improvement Planner and press Load a sample plan — cards in year lanes, dashed arrows between the ones that depend on each other. Drag a card into another year and the arrows follow it, then press
Audit Groundingto see every passage that plan was built from. Building the same board from your own document takes about three minutes; this is how you find out whether it is worth them.
Try it on your own documents
Bring your catalog. Ask it something hard.
Your document is yours. Your browser holds a session cookie, and every upload and plan card is filed against it. No other session can list, read, or ask questions about your document, and the server answers “no such document” rather than refusing in a way that would confirm one exists. Uploads are deleted within 24 hours, and neither the filename nor the contents ever reach a log.
You can reach the daily ceiling. If you do, the chat and the planner say so in plain words, and the Standards Explorer carries on as normal because it never calls a model at all. That is a deliberate order of sacrifice rather than a failure.
There is no login, and the session cookie is not one. It separates visitors, it does not identify them. Clear your cookies and your board goes with them, so treat this the way you would treat an email attachment and upload accordingly.
What you have to work with
Per visitor, per day. Browsing and searching the standards are never rationed.
| Action | Here |
|---|---|
| Browse the 62-document hierarchy | unlimited |
| Search it by meaning, not just keyword | unlimited |
| Open the scanned page behind a citation | unlimited |
| Upload your own document | PDF, DOCX, or TXT |
| Ask your own questions about it | 8 per hour |
| Generate an improvement plan | 1 per day · ~3 min |
| Rearrange and edit plan cards | saved to your session |
| Keep your upload private | yours only, deleted in 24h |
Reach the daily ceiling mid-visit and the two model-backed screens tell you so while the Explorer keeps going. Come back tomorrow, or book a time and we will run it across your full document set properly.
Want this against your own documents?
The corpus here happens to be SACSCOC. The architecture is not. It is a grounded retrieval pattern that applies to any body of policy an institution has to prove itself against, from a programmatic accreditor to a state authorization framework.