An assignment can be academically complete while still containing the wrong identifying information for anonymous marking. A student may remove a name from the first page but leave it in a running header, filename or appendix. The reliable check is of the final submitted artifact against the actual instructions, rather than a memory of what another module required.

LSE's candidate-number guidance distinguishes assessment identifiers from names and student IDs, and tells students to follow departmental or platform-specific instructions. That is one institution's practice, not a universal filename convention. The audit below is CollegeVerse's practical method for checking a submission whose own instructions require anonymity.

Convert the instructions into a small field map

Imagine a fictional assessment that requires an assigned candidate identifier on the cover sheet and in the filename, but prohibits the student's name and ordinary student ID in the document. Other institutions or platforms can require a different arrangement, including automatic identification. Do not apply this invented rule where it conflicts with the real brief.

Place to inspect Fictional requirement Verification action
Cover sheet Correct candidate identifier only Compare with official record
Filename Specified module and candidate format Check final uploaded filename
Headers and footers No name or ordinary student ID Inspect every section
Appendices and embedded images No accidental personal label Review actual visible content
File properties and comments Check applicable anonymity instructions Inspect the exported artifact

The table is a checklist of locations, not a claim that every platform exposes all file properties to markers. Ask what the institution requires. Removing identifying information that the brief explicitly needs can also cause a problem, so “delete every identifier” is not the right general rule.

Verify the identifier through the official route

Do not substitute a library number, login name or ordinary student ID because it is easier to remember. Retrieve the required identifier from the official student system or assessment instructions. Copy it carefully and check that it belongs to the applicable programme or assessment arrangement.

If the expected identifier is unavailable or appears compromised, contact the responsible assessment service before inventing a replacement. Do not publish a mapping between a personal identity and an anonymous identifier in a shared group document. Use the institution's support route when an issue needs to be discussed.

Inspect the exported file, not only the working document

An editor's working view and the exported PDF can differ. Open the final export and inspect its pages, including section-specific headers, tables, screenshots and appendices. Search for the relevant name and student ID where text search is supported, then visually check images that text search may not cover.

Review comments, tracked changes and document properties in accordance with the instructions. Keep an intact private working copy before making submission-specific changes. If identifying information is legitimately part of research evidence or self-citation, ask how it should be handled rather than silently altering evidence or omitting required attribution.

Anonymity is also distinct from authorship and academic integrity. Removing a name does not remove the obligation to acknowledge sources, disclose permitted assistance or complete individual work where required. A technical identity check should never become a reason to fabricate or conceal the academic process.

Check what actually arrived

After uploading, verify the platform's displayed filename, assessment destination and submission status. Where permitted, open or download the submitted version and compare it with the checked export. Preserve the receipt and any official instructions about replacement submissions.

Do not assume that selecting a file is the same as completing the submission. If an error is found near the deadline, follow the institution's stated correction process rather than making multiple unverified uploads. Keep the assessment permission matrix alongside this final-artifact check when assistance rules also apply. Together, these records connect the required identity fields, the actual work and the version that reached the assessment system.