How Do You Keep Evidence That an HSC Major Work Is Your Own?

Your final major work is finished. Your teacher asks why you changed the original design, what happened during your second experiment, and how you decided which feedback to use. You know the answers, but your folder contains only the final submission. There is very little showing how you got there.

How Do You Keep Evidence That an HSC Major Work Is Your Own? Keep two connected records: a dated process journal explaining your decisions, and a version history preserving the drafts, experiments, sketches, and working files behind those decisions.

This is more than good organisation. NESA states that if plagiarism is suspected, you may need to demonstrate that your work is entirely your own by explaining your process using diaries, journals, notes, working plans, sketches, and progressive drafts. You may also need to answer questions about the work to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding. NESA’s 2026 HSC Rules and Procedures guide.

The aim is to create a genuine record of how your work developed, not to manufacture paperwork at the end.

01What counts as evidence that your work is your own?

Think about the difference between showing that you spent time on a project and showing that you actually developed it.

A timesheet might show that you worked on your major work for three hours on Saturday. It tells your teacher very little about what you achieved, which decisions you made, or whether the submitted work reflects your own thinking.

A process record answers much more useful questions:

• What was your original idea?
• What research, planning, or investigation did you undertake?
• Which decisions did you make independently?
• What experiments, drafts, or design changes did you complete?
• What went wrong, and how did you respond?
• What feedback did you receive, and what did you choose to do with it?
• Did anyone else contribute words, ideas, designs, materials, or technical work?
• Can you explain the reasoning behind the final version?

NESA requires students to acknowledge work that has been written, created, or developed by someone else. This includes material from books, journals, the internet, generative AI, music, art, and peers.

For projects and performances, this also includes work undertaken by other people. NESA’s academic integrity and malpractice rules explain these responsibilities.

Evidence of effort versus evidence of authorship

These records serve different purposes.

A strong process record combines several of these.

For example, writing “Worked on prototype for two hours” is a weak journal entry.

Writing “Tested two different hinge positions. The first caused the lid to catch against the frame, so I moved the hinge and repeated the test. Kept the original measurements and photographed both versions” gives someone a much clearer understanding of your work.

The second entry records a problem, an action, an observation, and a decision. That is evidence of development.

02First, understand which rules apply to your major work

Not every HSC major work has identical documentation requirements. It is important to separate NESA’s general academic integrity rules from course-specific requirements and your school’s assessment policy.

1. NESA requirements

NESA establishes the academic integrity requirements that apply across HSC assessment.

You must ensure that the work you submit is your own and appropriately acknowledge material or contributions from other people.

For HSC practical examination components, including projects, submitted works, and performances, there are additional certification requirements.

Under NESA’s current practical examination rules:

• Supervising teachers must observe and document students’ progress.
• Supervising teachers must retain documented evidence supporting the authenticity and integrity of the work.
• Students must complete and sign a Student Declaration Form.
• Students must acknowledge outsourcing where relevant.
• Teachers and principals have responsibilities for certifying the work.

Teachers must retain relevant records and declarations until 30 June of the following calendar year.

These requirements are explained in NESA’s HSC practical examination rules.

Importantly, these requirements do not mean that every HSC student must maintain the same type of journal or submit an identical collection of drafts.

2. Course-specific requirements

Your subject syllabus and its Assessment and Reporting information determine additional requirements for your particular major work.

English Extension 2 is a useful example.

Students undertaking English Extension 2 must document the development of their Major Work in a Major Work Journal. This journal records the composition process, including research, analysis, and critical, imaginative, and speculative reflections.

There is also a syllabus transition worth understanding:

• The English Extension Stage 6 Syllabus (2017) applies to the final HSC examination in 2026. It requires students to document their coursework in a Major Work Journal.
• The English Extension 11-12 Syllabus (2024) begins Year 12 implementation in Term 4 of 2026, with its first HSC examination in 2027. It also requires a Major Work Journal.

You can check the requirements for each cohort through the 2017 English Extension syllabus and the 2024 English Extension syllabus.

Do not assume that a requirement for English Extension 2 automatically applies to every other HSC major work. Check your own subject’s documentation.

3. Your school’s assessment and malpractice policies

NESA requires schools to provide students with written advice about their Stage 6 school-based assessment policies and procedures, including the school’s malpractice policy.

Your school may specify:

• How frequently you must show your teacher your progress.
• Whether you must maintain a physical or digital process journal.
• Which drafts, photographs, or supporting documents must be submitted.
• What collaboration and external assistance are permitted.
• Whether AI tools can be used and under what conditions.
• How and when your teacher will check the authenticity of your work.

These details can differ between schools and assessment tasks.

If you are unsure, ask your supervising teacher for the written requirements. Do not rely on what another student did for a different subject or at a different school.

4. External institutions and providers

If you are completing a course through an institution outside your home school, confirm who is supervising your major work and which assessment procedures apply.

NESA’s 2026 guide explains that an institution delivering a course outside a student’s home school provides the assessment mark for that course.

Ask the delivering institution and your home school how progress will be monitored, what documentation is required, and where records must be retained.

5. UAC is a separate process

UAC manages university applications and offers. It does not certify whether your HSC major work is your own.

Your process journal, working drafts, and authorship evidence belong in your school or course assessment process, not your ordinary UAC undergraduate application.

If you later apply to university, follow the relevant UAC application and offer requirements separately.

03Build a process journal that records your decisions

A process journal is the central record of your major work’s development.

It does not need to be beautifully presented. It needs to be honest, dated, specific, and useful.

Think of it as a running explanation of your creative or investigative decisions.

A good entry should explain what you were trying to achieve, what you did, what happened, and what you decided to do next.

What should each journal entry include?

Use the following structure whenever you reach a meaningful stage of your project.

You do not need to write an essay every time you work on your project.

A few clear sentences can be enough if they explain an important decision.

For example, an entry about a visual arts major work might look like this.

Annotated example: A process journal entry

The following is an illustrative example, not a record of an actual student’s project.

Date: 14 May 2026

Project stage: Visual arts composition, study 6.

Problem: I was unsure whether placing the main figure in the centre of the composition made the work feel too static.

Action: Created two thumbnail studies using the same subject and background. In the second study, I moved the figure towards the right edge and changed the crop.

Observation: The second composition created more movement, but the hand became difficult to distinguish from the background.

Decision: I decided to retain the second composition because it better communicated the tension I wanted. I will increase the contrast around the hand before developing the larger work.

Feedback: My teacher asked what I wanted the viewer to notice first. I decided that the hand should remain the main focal point.

Supporting evidence:

• 2026-05-14_v05_centre.jpg
• 2026-05-14_v06_edge.jpg
• journal_entry_14may.pdf

Next step: Test two different background values and compare their effect on the focal point.

Notice what makes this entry useful.

It does not simply say that the student made two sketches. It explains why the student made them, what changed, what was learned, and why one option was selected.

It also distinguishes the teacher’s feedback from the student’s own decision.

When should you write journal entries?

Record meaningful developments rather than treating the journal as a daily attendance sheet.

Useful times to make an entry include:

• When you settle on your initial concept.
• When research changes your understanding of the topic.
• When you complete an experiment or test.
• When you reject an idea or change direction.
• When you receive significant feedback.
• When you complete a substantial draft or prototype.
• When you use an external service or specialist.
• When you make an important final revision.

If your teacher requires weekly entries or specific checkpoints, follow those instructions.

One important rule: write entries honestly and close to the time the work occurs.

Do not invent earlier entries or backdate notes to make your journal appear more complete. NESA explicitly identifies fabricated project journal entries as a form of misrepresentation.

If you realise you have missed a stage, you can write a retrospective note. Clearly state when you are writing it and explain what information you used to reconstruct the earlier development, such as saved drafts, photographs, or emails.

An honest retrospective entry is much better than pretending you recorded something at the time.

04Keep a version history of your actual work

Your process journal explains your decisions. Your version history shows how those decisions changed the work itself.

You need both.

Imagine someone reading your journal and seeing that you changed the structure of a written piece after receiving feedback. If you have kept the earlier and later drafts, they can see the development rather than relying entirely on your explanation.

Use a consistent file-naming system

Create one main folder for your major work, then organise it into smaller folders.

A practical structure is:

• 00_Task-and-requirements
• 01_Process-journal
• 02_Research-and-sources
• 03_Drafts-and-working-files
• 04_Experiments-and-photographs
• 05_Feedback-and-assistance
• 06_Final-submission

Give each important working file a date, version number, and short description.

For example:

Keep earlier versions rather than saving over them.

If you use Google Drive, OneDrive, or another cloud storage platform, its version history may help you trace changes. However, do not rely on this feature alone.

Save copies of important milestones, including original working files and exported versions. Keep a separate backup as well.

A file timestamp is useful supporting information, but it does not independently prove who created the content.

What should you preserve?

The relevant evidence depends on the form of your major work.

You do not need to save every temporary file or every minor correction.

Prioritise the versions that show meaningful development.

05Record feedback without giving away authorship

Receiving feedback is a normal part of developing a major work.

Your teacher might suggest that your argument needs more depth. A classmate might notice that your prototype is unstable. A specialist might explain how to use a particular piece of equipment.

The important distinction is between someone helping you think and someone doing the assessed work for you.

For every significant piece of feedback, record:

1. Who provided it.
2. When you received it.
3. What they suggested or questioned.
4. What you decided to do.
5. Why you accepted, adapted, or rejected their suggestion.

For example:

Feedback received: A classmate suggested removing the opening paragraph because it repeated information introduced later.

My response: I compared both versions and decided to shorten the paragraph rather than remove it. I wanted to establish the research context before introducing the central argument.

Evidence: Original draft, revised draft, and dated journal entry.

This demonstrates that you considered the advice and made your own decision.

What about tutors, mentors, and specialist assistance?

NESA identifies submitting work substantially contributed to by another person, including a parent, coach, tutor, or subject expert, as potential collusion.

That does not mean you cannot receive legitimate guidance.

It means you need to understand where guidance ends and someone else’s contribution begins.

Consider the difference:

For example, imagine you design a component yourself but use a specialist service to manufacture it.

That is different from asking the specialist to design the component for you.

NESA requires students to acknowledge outsourcing where relevant. Its practical examination rules explain that this acknowledgement may be included in supporting documentation, a project journal, folio, diary, or log.

However, acknowledgement does not automatically make every type of assistance permissible.

Check the subject requirements and get your supervising teacher’s approval before arranging substantial external assistance.

06What if you use AI during your major work?

AI introduces another reason to maintain accurate records.

If your school permits AI for a particular purpose, document its involvement. Record:

• The tool you used.
• The date of use.
• The task or question you gave it.
• The relevant output.
• Which suggestions or material you retained.
• How you edited, checked, or rejected the output.

For example, using an AI tool to brainstorm possible research questions is different from asking it to write a substantial section of your final submission.

Your school’s policy determines what is permitted for the assessment.

NESA requires appropriate acknowledgement of material from generative AI and identifies unauthorised AI use as potential malpractice. Its rules also make clear that schools must not rely on AI detection software to determine whether malpractice has occurred. This does not mean that prohibited AI use becomes acceptable.

The strongest approach is to be transparent about your actual process and follow the rules before using the tool.

For a more detailed explanation of acceptable boundaries, see Can You Use AI for HSC Assessments? A Practical Checklist.

07Make sure your teacher can follow your progress

Your records are more useful when your supervising teacher has actually seen your work developing.

Do not wait until the final submission to show them your project.

Arrange regular progress discussions and bring something concrete to each meeting:

• Your latest draft or prototype.
• A question you are trying to resolve.
• An experiment or test result.
• A record of changes since the previous meeting.
• Any external assistance you are considering.

After the discussion, write a short journal entry explaining what was discussed and which decisions you made afterwards.

For HSC practical examination components, NESA specifically requires supervising teachers to observe and document student progress and maintain evidence supporting authenticity and integrity.

For English Extension 2 under the 2024 syllabus, the Major Work must be conceived and executed by the student under the supervising teacher’s supervision from its commencement. Some development must take place in school time, while work completed away from school must be monitored and documented.

This is another reason to establish a consistent process early rather than trying to reconstruct everything near the deadline.

08Your major work evidence checklist

Before submitting your major work, work through this checklist.

Process journal

• [ ] My entries are dated and written honestly.
• [ ] I have recorded important decisions and changes in direction.
• [ ] I have explained the reasoning behind significant choices.
• [ ] I have recorded experiments, observations, and unsuccessful attempts.
• [ ] I have documented relevant feedback and my responses.

Version history

• [ ] I have retained important earlier drafts and working files.
• [ ] My files have clear dates and version numbers.
• [ ] I have preserved original sketches, data, and working materials.
• [ ] My journal entries refer to the relevant supporting files.
• [ ] I have backed up my important records.

Sources and assistance

• [ ] I have acknowledged material from other people and external sources.
• [ ] I have recorded relevant tutor, peer, mentor, and specialist assistance.
• [ ] I have checked whether any external assistance was permitted.
• [ ] I have recorded AI use where relevant and followed school policy.
• [ ] I can explain which parts of the work I personally developed.

Teacher and submission requirements

• [ ] My supervising teacher has seen my progress.
• [ ] I have followed the course-specific documentation requirements.
• [ ] I understand which declarations I need to complete.
• [ ] I have retained a copy of my final submission.
• [ ] I know which supporting records must be submitted and which must simply be retained.

Do not automatically upload your entire working folder with your final major work. Follow the actual submission instructions for your course.

09Questions and solutions

The following scenarios test whether you can distinguish genuine evidence of authorship from records that merely make a project look organised.

Question 1

A student has completed an HSC multimedia major work. They have a final video file and a calendar showing that they spent 24 hours editing it.

Explain why this is insufficient evidence of the video’s development. Identify two additional types of evidence they should retain.

Solution 1

The calendar and final video are not enough to show how the student developed the work.

The calendar records time spent, while the final video only shows the finished product. Neither provides a clear account of the decisions and changes made during production.

The student should retain:

• Progressive working files, including storyboards, scripts, rough cuts, editing timelines, and dated video exports.
• A process journal recording significant editing decisions, problems, feedback, and changes made between versions.

For example, if the student removed a voice-over because it distracted from the visual narrative, the journal should explain that decision and identify the relevant versions.

Together, the journal and working files provide a much stronger account of the student’s development process.

Question 2

A student receives feedback from their supervising teacher that the opening of their major work is unclear.

The teacher suggests adding background information. The student instead restructures the opening to reveal information gradually through dialogue.

How should the student document this change to demonstrate that the final decision was their own?

Solution 2

The student should record the teacher’s feedback, their alternative approach, and the reasoning behind their decision.

A useful entry would include:

• The date and version of the original draft.
• The teacher’s suggestion.
• The alternative structure the student considered.
• Why the student chose to use dialogue rather than additional background information.
• The resulting changes in the next draft.

The important point is that receiving feedback does not mean someone else has authored the resulting work.

The teacher identified a problem and suggested a possible solution. The student evaluated that suggestion and developed a different response.

Keeping both drafts makes this development easier to demonstrate.

Question 3

A student designing a piece of furniture creates their own CAD drawings but uses a commercial laser-cutting service to manufacture a component.

The service makes a small adjustment to the component so it can be manufactured successfully.

Can the student still demonstrate that the major work is their own? Explain what they should record.

Solution 3

Potentially, yes, but the student must check the relevant course and school requirements and accurately disclose the external assistance.

There is an important distinction between someone manufacturing a component from the student’s design and someone independently creating the design.

The student should retain:

• Their original CAD drawings.
• The instructions supplied to the manufacturer.
• The manufacturer’s details and description of the adjustment.
• Photographs of the manufactured component.
• A journal entry explaining what was changed and why.
• Any relevant approval or communication from the supervising teacher.

This allows the teacher to distinguish the student’s design work from the external manufacturing contribution.

NESA requires relevant outsourcing to be acknowledged, but this does not automatically mean every form of external assistance is permitted.

The student should confirm that the arrangement complies with the course requirements rather than assuming that acknowledging the service resolves every authorship issue.

Question 4

A student uses an AI writing tool to generate alternative paragraphs for their English Extension 2 Major Work.

Their school permits AI for brainstorming but does not permit it to write or rewrite sections of the submitted work. The student edits one generated paragraph and includes it in the final submission, keeping no record of the interaction.

What is the problem, and what should the student do?

Solution 4

The student has used AI beyond the permitted purpose, and simply acknowledging the tool would not make that use acceptable.

The school allows brainstorming but prohibits AI-generated drafting. The student has crossed that boundary by using a generated paragraph in the submitted work.

They should:

• Preserve an accurate record of the AI interaction and the paragraph produced.
• Identify exactly what material was used.
• Speak to their supervising teacher about the situation.
• Follow the teacher’s direction about removing or replacing the material.
• Continue documenting their own composition process and any subsequent revisions.

There is also a course-specific requirement here: English Extension 2 requires a Major Work Journal.

That journal should document the student’s actual composition process, not just the final version of the work.

The key distinction is between acknowledging an external contribution and being permitted to use that contribution in the first place.

Question 5

A student has maintained an excellent process journal throughout their design and technology major work.

Their records include:

• Original sketches and CAD drawings.
• Several photographed prototypes.
• Dated design revisions.
• Teacher progress discussions.
• A detailed explanation of why they selected their final design.

However, shortly before submission, a commercial fabricator identifies a safety problem and redesigns an important load-bearing joint. The student acknowledges the fabricator in their supporting documentation but submits the modified design as their final major work.

Can the student use their extensive journal to establish that the entire final design is their own? Explain what the student must consider before submission.

Solution 5

No. The journal provides strong evidence that the student developed the original concept and much of the design, but it does not establish that the entire final design was independently developed by the student.

The critical issue is the nature of the fabricator’s contribution.

Consider two separate situations:

Situation A: Manufacturing assistance

The student independently designs a load-bearing joint. The fabricator manufactures it according to the student’s specifications, using an agreed technical process.

The student can document their design decisions and acknowledge the manufacturing service where required.

Situation B: Design assistance

The fabricator identifies a problem and independently redesigns the joint. The student then incorporates this new design into the submitted work.

This is a different contribution. The fabricator has now participated in developing an important part of the design itself.

The student’s original sketches and CAD files still demonstrate genuine work, but they cannot establish that the modified joint was designed by the student.

The student must therefore:

1. Preserve the original CAD files and the fabricator’s modified files.
2. Document exactly what the fabricator changed and why.
3. Record the external assistance accurately.
4. Notify the supervising teacher before submission.
5. Check whether the modification is permitted under the relevant course requirements and whether the final work can be certified.

If appropriate, the student may be able to develop an alternative design themselves under supervision, provided it meets the relevant safety requirements and course conditions.

They must not simply hide the fabricator’s contribution or describe the modified design as their own.

This scenario highlights an important limit of process documentation: evidence that you developed most of a project does not automatically establish authorship of every component in its final form.

NESA’s certification requirements place responsibility on supervising teachers and principals to confirm the authenticity and integrity of HSC practical work. If a teacher cannot certify the work or a component of it, the school must follow the applicable non-certification procedures.

The correct response is transparency, not trying to make the paperwork look convincing.

A strong authorship record is built while the work is happening. Your next step is to compare your journal and version-history system with the actual requirements of your assessment task.

Start with How to Read an HSC Assessment Notification Effectively. It will help you identify what your task assesses, what your school expects, and which submission requirements your documentation needs to support.

The aim is simple: if someone asks how your major work developed, you should be able to show the evidence, explain your decisions, and account honestly for every significant contribution.