CampusHub uses automated screening to order and flag admission applications: checking document completeness, extracting marks from uploaded transcripts for verification, identifying duplicates, and ranking against your published criteria. Every admission decision remains with the institution.
It does not decide admissions and does not score candidates on anything beyond your published criteria. Extracted values are always shown for human confirmation before use.
Screening three thousand applications is a document-checking exercise before it is a judgement. Roughly nine in ten of the hours go into confirming that a mark sheet says what the form claims, that nothing is missing, and that the same candidate has not applied twice.
The distinction is between checking and judging.
| Task | Automated | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Document completeness | Yes | A checklist, with no judgement involved |
| Reading marks from a transcript | Yes, for confirmation | Extraction is fast and error-prone, so a human confirms before it is used |
| Duplicate detection | Yes | Same candidate under two applications is a factual match, not a judgement |
| Ranking on published criteria | Yes | Deterministic arithmetic on criteria you published in advance |
| Assessing suitability | No | Not defensible, not lawful to delegate, and not something we will build |
Reading a mark from a scanned transcript is exactly the kind of task where automation is right most of the time and wrong in ways that are hard to spot — a smudged digit, an unusual layout, a subject listed twice.
Extracted values are presented alongside the source image for a human to confirm. That is slower than accepting them silently, and it is the difference between a merit list you can defend and one you cannot.
Phrased the way they arrive, answered so each one stands on its own.
No. It orders and flags applications against criteria you publish, and every decision is made by the institution. Delegating an admission decision to a model is neither defensible nor something we build.
Good enough to save time, not good enough to trust silently. Every extracted value is shown beside the source document for confirmation before it enters the merit calculation.
Yes, across name, date of birth and identifiers, flagged for review rather than merged automatically. Two genuinely different candidates occasionally look identical on paper.
Checked by the Implementations desk on 1 September 2026. Corrections go in the page, dated, rather than quietly.
Pricing is on the page, in the open, with the counting rule written next to it. Nobody has to book a call to find out what it costs.
See pricingForty minutes with an implementation engineer — your classes, your fee heads, your grading scheme, entered as we go. No slides, no sample school.