The Grammarly case

You edited with Grammarly. A detector flagged the paper. Now what?

This is one of the most common honest cases: you wrote the paper, ran it through a grammar and spelling tool your school may even provide, and a detector then flagged the polished text — because detectors measure surface patterns, and edited text has smoother patterns than raw drafts. The editing changed the surface. It did not change the author.

Your case is built from three documents. First, the syllabus and your school's tool policy: what does it actually permit? Many syllabi allow or encourage grammar tools while barring generated text; some restrict AI features specifically. The exact words govern, so quote them. Second, your pre-edit draft — the version history showing the paper existing, in your voice, before the polish. This is why the version history ranks first on the evidence list. Third, the tool's own footprint: Grammarly's suggestion history where available, showing corrections accepted one at a time — the record of an editor, not an author.

One honest distinction to keep straight: grammar correction is one thing; generative rewriting features — whole sentences and paragraphs produced for you — are treated as AI writing by most policies, including, frankly, by this site. If your use was correction and clarity, say exactly that and show the draft history. If a generative feature rewrote passages, the honest conversation in the false-accusation page's closing note applies — own it early rather than defend the indefensible.

Count your window in the checker (choose “another detector” if the flag came from a score, and write the Grammarly facts into your statement's third paragraph, where the score gets answered).