A Solo Session, a Phone in a Pocket, and a Social Post
A proctor hired five weeks ago, D.N., has completed three of the four required supervised sessions; the fourth was cancelled when the supervising proctor called out. Because two experienced proctors were also out, the center manager scheduled D.N. to run a 55-candidate session alone, telling D.N. to "text me if anything comes up." During the session, a candidate reports that D.N. was on a personal phone at the proctor station and said to a candidate who had a phone in a pocket, "I didn't see that, don't worry." After the session, a candidate emails the center saying D.N. posted a story on a personal social account showing the testing room during the session, with candidate heads blurred, captioned "55 people, one me." The post was deleted within an hour. D.N.'s file shows no prior issues, and the center manager calls D.N. "a natural" and asks whether a written warning will be enough to close the matter.
1. What do you do in the first hour, and what do you preserve?
Read the worked answer
Remove D.N. from testing duties immediately, pending review - not as discipline, but because three separate allegations now touch exam security and candidate confidentiality, and continuing to proctor creates fresh exposure every session. Say it that way to the manager so it is not read as a premature finding.
Preserve, in this order:
- The session record: station assignments, check-in logs, launch times, and the identity of the candidate who reported the phone exchange.
- CCTV covering the proctor station and the room, exported with a recorded time and a note of who exported it.
- The candidate's email, untouched, with headers intact.
- Any screenshot of the social post. Ask the reporting candidate to forward the screenshot they already have; do not ask staff to search D.N.'s personal account, and do not ask D.N. to hand over a personal phone. If the account is public and a screenshot already exists, that is the evidence. Device access is an HR matter, not a proctor matter.
Do not interview D.N. in detail before HR and the quality lead agree the approach. Get a brief factual account of the shift, then stop. Detailed questioning by an untrained interviewer contaminates the record and creates needless risk of a constructive-dismissal argument.
Do not contact the reporting candidates beyond a standard acknowledgement that the matter has been received. No explanation, no apology, no speculation about consequences.
Notify the quality lead and HR the same day, and open an irregularity report. Three separate threads - candidate phone, staff instruction, published image - belong in one report with three clearly separated findings, not three reports that later have to be reconciled.
2. Classify the three issues and set out the escalation and the decision on the candidate's exam.
Read the worked answer
Issue 1 - candidate with a phone in the testing room. A prohibited-item finding on that candidate's session. Secure the candidate's identity, seat, and time window, and refer the result for review. The center does not void the score; it reports and recommends. Whether the device was used matters, but it is for the reviewing body to weigh against the proctor's failure to act.
Issue 2 - D.N. saying "I didn't see that, don't worry." The more serious of the first two. A proctor who actively declines to enforce a rule is not making an error of judgement in the moment; the words suggest a deliberate decision to exempt a candidate. Treat as potential staff misconduct affecting test integrity, escalate to HR and quality together, and expect that the candidate's review will hinge on it. Note the possibility that D.N. knew the candidate; a relationship check should be part of the investigation before any interview conclusions are drawn.
Issue 3 - the social media post. A confidentiality and security breach. Blurring faces does not fix it: the room, the date, the caption, and the visible layout allow candidates in that session to be placed and potentially identified, and it publishes the physical arrangement of a secure testing environment. This is a data-protection matter with its own notification obligations, and it is escalated on that basis as well as under staff conduct. A post deleted within an hour limits exposure but does not undo it - it was public to followers.
Escalation timing: all three go up the same day. Undisclosed breaches are a much larger problem than the breach itself, and the deletion is exactly the detail an investigator needs to know about rather than discover.
For the candidate: no promise, no outcome, standard notification that the attempt is under review.
3. A written warning is proposed as the whole remedy. Assess the supervision failures behind the session and set out what the response should actually be.
Read the worked answer
A written warning addresses conduct; it does not address the decision that made the conduct possible.
The supervision chain:
- D.N. ran a 55-candidate session without completing supervised sign-off. That is a direct breach of the training standard.
- The session was run alone, with the manager off site and reachable only by text. "Text me if anything comes up" is not supervision, and it leaves no contemporaneous record of any decision.
- A manager overrode a training requirement to cover a staffing gap without a documented exception or risk assessment. That decision is itself a finding.
- The fourth supervised session was cancelled and not rescheduled, so a known gap was left open.
Check the manual's limits on candidates per proctor and on unsupervised practice. If 55 exceeds the ratio, that is an additional finding independent of everything D.N. did.
Response should include:
- Investigation of all three issues, with findings separated.
- Removal of the managerial override as an option: staffing shortfalls cannot be resolved by waiving sign-off, and any exception requires documented regional approval.
- D.N. re-supervised across the full required number of sessions, with a documented competency sign-off before solo work resumes; retraining on prohibited items, candidate confidentiality, and personal-device use on the floor, signed and dated.
- A conduct outcome determined by the investigation, not by the manager's assessment of D.N.'s likeability. "A natural" is an impression formed in five weeks, and it is not evidence against three findings.
- A review of D.N.'s three prior sessions for similar instructions or phone use, and of whether any other new proctor has been rostered without sign-off.
- A supervision finding recorded against the center manager, with its own corrective action.
A written warning alone closes the file while leaving the staffing practice, the sign-off gap, and the confidentiality control unchanged.