The student still does the thinking.
- Orient to the lecture before expanding notes
- Retrieve an idea before seeing the answer
- Return to the source and write a personal explanation
Institutional readiness
Review the learning case with the evidence in view.
Education leaders can examine how Synlecto turns lecture material into active study, then review source grounding, accessibility, privacy, governance, current controls, known limits, and the next accountable decision.
Current public gate: ready for a first conversation. A pilot offer and formal procurement response remain controlled review stages.
SynlectoInstitutional reviewPublic evidence view
Learning model
Visible in productFollow one lecture through the Synlecto study route.
Review what the learner sees, where active effort happens, and how the lecture remains the reference throughout.
Lecture sourceReference stays open
GuideStructure and concepts
RecallAnswer before reveal
Mission or quizApply and check
StudioLearner explanation
RevisitReturn when useful
The learning design is inspectable.
- Source-connected guide and return paths
- Recall, mission, quiz and revisit actions
- Learner-owned Studio work kept distinct
Review flow
A structured route through university review
Education leaders can start with the learning case, then see the assurance evidence expected by learning technology, accessibility, privacy, procurement, and student-support teams.
Cognitive effort first
Students move from lecture source into guide, recall, application, and revisit actions rather than finished answers.
Academic assurance visible
Source boundaries, quality labels, review state, and course-rule reminders make limits visible to students and staff.
Specialist review in context
Accessibility, privacy, procurement, integration, and support questions sit beside the learning case, not after it.
Pilot route before rollout
A bounded pilot tests benefit, risk, support load, and expansion criteria before any wider institutional decision.
Positioning
What Synlecto is
The product is positioned as a lecture-first study route for higher education, with careful claims and a clear university pilot path.
Primary descriptionLecture-first study route
Synlecto is a lecture-learning system for higher education. It turns lecture material into structured study support, active recall, and next-step revision, with academic quality controls, accessibility-first design, and institution-ready deployment.
DifferentiatorActive learning, not generic AI output
Synlecto is not a generic AI summary app. It is a quality-gated lecture-learning layer designed for university teaching, accessibility, and term-long revision.
Deployment postureControlled review before wider use
Institutional adoption is framed as managed deployment for cohorts, schools, or support services.
Current state and review boundariesCurrent state, deployment position, and roadmap work are kept distinct.
Current confirmed state: what Synlecto can support from current code, tests, and public documentation.
Controlled deployment position: the deployment framing used for university review and contract discussion where it does not overstate current implementation.
Roadmap or bespoke work: later work that is scoped openly with the university and not presented here as current implementation.
Assurance evidence
Academic, accessibility, privacy, and integration evidence in one place
Each lane gives a reviewer the current public position first, then keeps limits, evidence, and roadmap items close to the relevant question.
Guide first, recall next, revisit later
Study-route assurance
Guide first, recall next, revisit later
Study-route assurance
Synlecto is moving from one-off guide generation toward source-grounded study routes: a lecture-first route through recap, active recall, revisit points, and later review.
Assurance is shown in the product through guide quality labels, source coverage checks, publication states, and review prompts.
For universities, the practical pilot question is constructive learning value: whether students can use existing lecture material more confidently while course materials, lecturer judgement, and academic standards remain central.
Current public position
Security baseline
Current public position
Security baseline
Synlecto has a documented security baseline and a roadmap toward stronger formal assurance suitable for institutional review.
Synlecto uses authenticated access controls, server-side verification, rate limiting, security headers, and privacy-aware observability.
Sensitive content is not sent into analytics by default.
Core application data is hosted in European infrastructure.
If any third-party processing falls outside that core hosting footprint, it is disclosed in sub-processor and contract materials.
Inclusive study support
Accessibility position
Inclusive study support
Accessibility position
Synlecto is designed with accessibility-first principles and aims toward WCAG 2.2 AA-aligned delivery, supported by automated checks, manual assistive-technology testing, and a published accessibility statement with known limitations and ongoing improvements.
Synlecto supports accessibility-first study through keyboard-oriented controls, reading preferences, transcript-linked study support, automated checks, and manual assistive-technology testing evidence.
Known limitations and ongoing improvements are stated openly rather than being hidden behind a blanket conformance claim.
Compatibility context
Current integration state
Compatibility context
Current integration state
Current state: browser-surface compatibility with Panopto, Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, Brightspace, YouTube, Vimeo, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Microsoft Stream, plus Google and Microsoft sign-in.
Microsoft sign-in is described as Microsoft sign-in, not as enterprise SSO.
Roadmap or bespoke institutional work only: SAML, Shibboleth, Entra enterprise SSO, LTI 1.3, Canvas-native LMS integration.
Review evidence
A decision matrix for institutional reviewers
Each row connects a university question to current product behaviour, the evidence route, and the boundary that still needs specialist review. This is a decision aid, not a substitute for legal, security, accessibility, academic, or procurement judgement.
Human agencyDoes Synlecto support learning without taking the student’s thinking away?
The study route starts with structure, then asks students to recall, compare, apply, and revisit the source. It is positioned as study support, not assessment automation, answer production, or a shortcut around course rules.
- Product or review signal
- Guide first, recall next, revisit later; students remain responsible for understanding and checking the material.
- Evidence route
- Guide quality model
Academic integrityAre source limits visible enough for responsible academic use?
Guide quality labels, source coverage checks, provenance language, and honest downgrading help reviewers see when an output is checked, partial, limited-source, or source-text only.
- Product or review signal
- Source provenance, publication states, and guide quality labels are part of the product language.
- Evidence route
- Academic assurance
Assessment boundariesDoes Synlecto avoid blurring study support with assessed work?
Public wording keeps Synlecto out of assessment automation and reminds students that module, assessment, and academic integrity rules remain authoritative. The product is designed for lecture study, not for producing submissions or judging misconduct.
- Product or review signal
- In-product limits, source-linked study routes, and pilot guidance can be aligned to local assessment categories and disclosure requirements.
- Evidence route
- Pilot boundaries
Inclusion and accessibilityDoes the product support inclusive study without replacing formal accommodations?
Synlecto is framed as transcript-aware study support with keyboard-oriented controls, reading preferences, known limitations, and manual testing evidence. It does not claim to replace disability support or formal accommodation processes.
- Product or review signal
- Accessibility statement, testing summary, reading preferences, and transcript-linked study routes.
- Evidence route
- Accessibility position
Student success and retentionCan a pilot evidence better study behaviour after lecture access?
The pilot focuses on repeat study, recall activity, revisit behaviour, student confidence, support load, and quality feedback rather than vanity usage alone.
- Product or review signal
- Pilot reporting can summarise aggregate study actions without exposing raw learner writing.
- Evidence route
- Pilot model
Transparency and AI literacyCan students and staff see what the tool does, what it does not do, and why?
The page separates current confirmed state, controlled deployment position, and roadmap or bespoke institutional work. Student-facing product language can explain capabilities, limits, source dependence, and responsible use without implying that AI output is authoritative.
- Product or review signal
- Current integration state, roadmap-only identity/LMS notes, quality labels, public pack status, and review cadence.
- Evidence route
- Integration boundaries
Privacy, IP, and data minimisationCan privacy and procurement teams review data, source, and intellectual-property boundaries without overbroad claims?
Public wording explains the retained guide and cleaned source snapshot model while privacy, DPA, subprocessor, retention, IP, and contract-end details remain in the controlled university review route.
- Product or review signal
- Privacy policy, procurement summary, data-lifecycle materials, subprocessor register, and source-handling notes are separated by review level.
- Evidence route
- Procurement review
Wellbeing and supportDoes the pilot avoid creating hidden support burden or harmful reliance?
A credible pilot should track support load, student confidence, objections, and guide quality feedback alongside usage. Synlecto is positioned as study support and does not replace professional services, lecturer judgement, or student-support routes.
- Product or review signal
- Pilot reporting can include support route usage, confidence movement, accessibility setting adoption, quality feedback, and escalation notes.
- Evidence route
- Pilot reporting
Governance and reviewIs there a narrow route from first conversation to accountable pilot review?
Readiness stages, document control, review cadence, named pilot ownership, and explicit support-route caveats help the university decide what can be discussed now and what needs controlled review before wider rollout.
- Product or review signal
- First conversation bundle, pilot review bundle, formal review bundle, and gate status.
- Evidence route
- Evidence pack
Pilot model
What a future controlled evaluation would need
This is an illustrative evaluation model, not a current public pilot offer. It becomes viable only when one cohort, a named institutional owner, an agreed support route, response commitments, and closeout criteria are confirmed.
Review the evaluation pathwayIllustrative time-boxed evaluation
A future evaluation would need enough time to observe lecture-to-study behaviour without drifting into an unreviewed rollout.
One defined learning context
Typically one module, school, support route, or lecture-heavy cohort, with scale only if support remains controlled.
Scope, mid-point, closeout
The pilot has explicit checks before launch, during use, and before any expansion recommendation.
Behaviour, quality, support load
The review tests whether students study more actively while academic and operational risk stays visible.
Review the evaluation pathwayPilot ownership and review discipline
A credible pilot has a named owner, local academic context, a support route, and an expansion gate before broader review.
Named pilot owner
One education, digital learning, student-success, or school owner holds the pilot question and closeout decision.
Local academic context
Module, programme, school, or support-service context shapes permitted source use and student guidance.
Support cadence
Kickoff, mid-point review, final report, and agreed escalation path keep student and staff issues visible.
Expansion gate
No wider recommendation is made without evidence on learning behaviour, quality, inclusion, support load, and risk.
First conversation
Best starting bundle for first institutional conversations: overview, academic assurance, and current integration boundary.
Safe for pilot offer
Use this stage to decide whether Synlecto can send pilot-facing materials rather than only discuss a pilot conceptually.
Safe for formal procurement response
Formal procurement response is ready only when the formal bundle is safe, required founder values are supplied, and the contract-facing draft materials are no longer blocked by unresolved founder inputs.
Local adaptation
University-specific adaptation, clearly bounded
Synlecto can meet the university context with a focused pilot first, then a clearer roadmap conversation around the institution’s learning design, support model, and technology estate.
Discipline-aware study routes
Pilot one lecture-heavy discipline with examples tuned to its assessment style, terminology, and revision rhythm.
VLE launch guidance
Shape student instructions around Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, Brightspace, Panopto, or Microsoft Stream usage patterns.
Accessibility pathway support
Prepare transcript-aware guidance for accessibility, disability support, learning development, or inclusive education teams.
Leadership-ready pilot reporting
Agree a compact pilot report showing student route usage, qualitative feedback, assurance boundaries, and next decisions.
Adaptation stays precise and reviewable
Examples include discipline-specific study-route guidance, transcript-aware accessibility review, Canvas/Moodle/Blackboard/Brightspace launch instructions, a leadership-ready pilot report, and stable reviewer-share bundles for security, privacy, accessibility, procurement, and academic assurance.
Deeper LMS-native integration, enterprise SSO, LTI 1.3, formal certifications, and institution-specific data workflows are treated as roadmap or bespoke institutional work unless separately agreed.
Review status
What reviewers can rely on first
The public pack supports a first education and learning-technology review. More detailed privacy, legal, security, and contract material is completed through the appropriate university review route once scope and contacts are agreed.
4 April 2026
Review cadence: Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
Shareable now
Shareable now.
First conversation materials are ready. Pilot review is completed through controlled review once named support handling and contractual response expectations are confirmed. Formal procurement response is completed through controlled review once contract-facing entity, contact, and deletion details are confirmed.
Synlecto retains the generated guide and a cleaned source snapshot used to support source moments, evidence, quality checks, and guide continuity.
Current capability, deployment assumptions, and future integration work are kept separate so a university can distinguish what is available today from what would need scoped review.
Evidence pack
Evidence pack for university review
Materials are grouped by review area so education leaders can see the evidence available for an initial conversation, what can be shared with a named specialist reviewer, and what remains incomplete until institution-specific inputs are agreed.
First-conversation evidence
Learning model, guide quality, public trust and accessibility position, current integration boundaries, privacy summary, terms, and review status.
Specialist evidence
Detailed privacy, security, lifecycle, DPA, subprocessor, accessibility, and implementation material is shared only with an agreed scope and reviewer.
Pilot and procurement commitments
Support ownership, response targets, contracting entity, named contacts, and final retention and contract-end wording must be resolved first.
Public summaries are shown here with their sharing status. Detailed privacy, legal, DPA, subprocessor, and contract-end materials are prepared through the appropriate university review route rather than published as blanket public commitments.
Best starting point: First conversation bundle. Later bundles are stage-gated; their presence in the register does not mean they are complete, publicly shareable, or ready to support a commitment.
Best starting document bundles
Choose the bundle that matches the conversation stage.
First conversation bundle
Best starting bundle for first institutional conversations: overview, academic assurance, and current integration boundary.
Included public materials: D1. Institutional overview, D7. Guide quality and academic assurance, D8. Integration note: Canvas, LTI, and SSO.
Pilot review bundle
Best bundle for pilot review: overview, accessibility, academic assurance, integration boundary, pilot model, and procurement summary.
Included public materials: D1. Institutional overview, D6. Accessibility statement and testing summary, D7. Guide quality and academic assurance, D8. Integration note: Canvas, LTI, and SSO, D9. Pilot proposal template, D10. Procurement summary sheet.
Formal review bundle
Best external-safe bundle for structured institutional review: current baseline across procurement, security, accessibility, academic assurance, integration, and pilot framing.
Included public materials: D1. Institutional overview, D2. Security overview, D6. Accessibility statement and testing summary, D7. Guide quality and academic assurance, D8. Integration note: Canvas, LTI, and SSO, D9. Pilot proposal template, D10. Procurement summary sheet.
Procurement and pilot review
Start here for first conversations, pilot scoping, and procurement triage.
D1. Institutional overviewDigital learning, accessibility, pilot sponsors, procurement
Plain-language overview of what Synlecto is, where it fits first, and how it should be read institutionally.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
D9. Pilot proposal templatePilot sponsors, digital learning, procurement
Reusable institutional pilot shape covering duration, cohort size, owners, and review cadence.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
D10. Procurement summary sheetProcurement, security review, digital learning
Single-sheet procurement summary covering product type, hosting, privacy posture, assurance, integration state, and support handling.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
Pilot evaluation frameworkPilot sponsors, digital learning, procurement preparation
Evaluation framework separating product-native metrics, manual review evidence, and pilot risk tracking.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Pilot metrics dictionaryPilot sponsors, digital learning, analytics review
Evidence-backed pilot metrics dictionary tied to existing dashboard and feedback signals, plus manual review measures.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Pilot sample report templatePilot sponsors, digital learning, procurement preparation
Template for a realistic post-pilot institutional outcomes report without fabricated numbers.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Security and accessibility review
Use these materials for current controls, accessibility position, and evidence boundaries.
D2. Security overviewSecurity review, procurement, digital learning
Current security baseline wording for institutional review, kept separate from formal assurance claims.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
D6. Accessibility statement and testing summaryAccessibility review, disability support, procurement
Accessibility-first position, current testing evidence, known limitations, and ongoing improvement note.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
Privacy, data, and lifecycle review
Use these materials for privacy triage, DPIA support, subprocessor review, retention, deletion, and contract-end discussion.
D3. Privacy and data overviewPrivacy review, DPIA support, legal review
Institution-facing privacy summary with the cleaned source snapshot model and controller or processor split.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
D5. Sub-processor register draftLegal review, privacy review, procurement
Operational sub-processor baseline covering current vendors, current role, and transfer-note handling.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Data lifecycle and contract-end deletion matrixInternal operations, privacy review, DPIA support
Internal scope matrix separating user-scoped, lecture-scoped, institution-scoped, and browser-local data for deletion and contract-end review.
- Sharing status
- Internal control material
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Whenever the readiness process, controls, or pack structure changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Retention and deletion schedulePrivacy review, DPIA support, legal review
Operational schedule for retention, deletion, export, and contract-end handling across the main university data categories.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Institution offboarding positionPrivacy review, DPIA support, internal operations
Internal note clarifying what is currently deletable, what remains lecture-scoped, and what still depends on deployment scoping or future purge tooling.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Academic and integration review
Use these materials for guide assurance, current interoperability, and academic trust questions.
D7. Guide quality and academic assuranceAcademic review, learning design, procurement
Academic assurance explanation describing source provenance, publication states, and honest downgrading.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
D8. Integration note: Canvas, LTI, and SSOIT review, digital learning, procurement
Strict current-state integration note separating browser-surface compatibility from roadmap-only identity and LMS work.
- Sharing status
- Public summary
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Quarterly and before any external circulation after a material readiness change.
- Delivery route
- Public page or public summary section
AI and guide transparency recordAcademic review, learning design, procurement
Plain institutional transparency record describing inputs, outputs, quality gates, publication states, and system limitations.
- Sharing status
- Shared during specialist review
- Last reviewed
- 2026-04-04
- Review cadence
- Before circulation and whenever legal, operational, or procurement material changes.
- Delivery route
- Shared through controlled university review
This material is available for the relevant university review route once scope, contacts, and review responsibilities are agreed.
Deeper security, privacy, procurement, accessibility, and academic review packs are available during university review and are shared through the appropriate review route.
Scope clarity
Items scoped separately
The following remain roadmap or bespoke institutional work and are scoped as part of a university-specific review: SAML, Shibboleth, Entra enterprise SSO, LTI 1.3, Canvas-native LMS integration, ISO 27001, SOC 2, formal framework or reseller route if not yet secured, campus-wide rollout automation.
FAQ
University readiness FAQ
What is Synlecto for universities?
Synlecto is a lecture-learning system for higher education. It turns lecture material into structured study support, active recall, and next-step revision with academic quality controls and accessibility-aware design.
What is Synlecto’s recommended pilot model?
There is no public pilot offer at the current readiness gate. Once support ownership, response commitments, scope, and contractual inputs are agreed, the intended evaluation shape is 8 to 12 weeks around one bounded learning context. The current route is an evidence-led first conversation.
Which integrations are current and which are roadmap-only?
Synlecto currently describes browser-surface compatibility with lecture and source workflows such as Panopto, Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, Brightspace, YouTube, Vimeo, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Microsoft Stream. SAML, Shibboleth, Entra enterprise SSO, LTI 1.3, and Canvas-native LMS integration are roadmap or bespoke institutional work unless separately agreed.
Can Synlecto adapt to a university’s local circumstances?
A future controlled evaluation could be scoped around a university’s VLE context, lecture-heavy disciplines, accessibility priorities, student-success services, reporting needs, and support model. Deeper LMS-native integration, enterprise SSO, certifications, and institutional data-sharing workflows remain roadmap or separately scoped institutional work.
How does Synlecto handle academic assurance?
Synlecto keeps assurance visible through source provenance, guide quality labels, source coverage checks, publication states, and review prompts. The product avoids presenting every generated guide as equally complete.
Who can a university contact about a Synlecto pilot?
Universities can use the first-party university review form to start a readiness conversation. That route gathers the decision context without presenting a pilot or procurement commitment before the relevant evidence gate is complete.
Next step
Contact route and next step
Use the institutional review form to share the decision context for an initial education, learning-technology, accessibility, privacy, or procurement conversation. General questions can also be sent to hello@synlecto.com.
Start an institutional conversationReview materials can be prepared for the meeting
Deployment-specific legal contacts, contract schedules, and detailed support targets are handled during university review rather than published as blanket public commitments.
Public-safe review bundles can be prepared on request for first conversation, specialist review, or a later stage-gated evaluation without exposing internal-draft material.