Editing Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms (section)

== Issues ==
<span id="HU-001"></span>
=== HU-001: Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap
! Date added
| 2026-04-30
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Enrollment
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas LMS account not auto-provisioned at enrollment; required manual creation.

'''Evidence.''' INC0479039 (2025-07-14); IT staff notation; enrollment emails to [email redacted] dated July 14, 2025.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I'm not sure why your account wasn't created automatically. I added it manually... I'm going to get this ticket escalated to get the rest of your initial enrollments processed. Sorry for the inconvenience!</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Handbook p.5 states students are expected to access LMS from program start. Enrollment systems failure contradicts published student access expectations.

'''Impact.''' Delayed access to orientation, initial courses, and required onboarding materials. Risk of missed deadlines at program start.

'''Notes.''' The reporting student filed INC0479039. Account created manually by Myrddin Emrys. Course enrollments required secondary ticket to fully resolve.

<span id="HU-041"></span>
=== HU-041: Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout 2025-2026 academic year ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Systemic Platform Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath)
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath academic platform (Elsevier) experienced chronic and recurring failures throughout the 2025-2026 academic year, including failure to load lessons, displaying completed assignments as incomplete, losing student work, and kicking students out mid-assignment.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (multiple dates, September 2025 to April 2026): Students reported Sherpath failures on at least 10 separate occasions. Student C (February 25, 2026) reported being kicked out of the platform mid-quiz immediately after clicking next. Student C (January 14, 2026) reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due, as if never done.

'''Reported statement.''' Student C stated that reaching out to Sherpath support was a lost cause, reported that a full week of completed Sherpath work had reverted to showing as past due as though never submitted, and later noted that Sherpath support did manage to locate a missing lab pass.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.5: students cannot be penalized for institutional technology failure.

'''Impact.''' Recurring Sherpath failures caused anxiety, required students to redo work, resulted in assignments incorrectly marked as incomplete, and placed students at risk of grade penalties for institutionally caused platform failures.

'''Notes.''' Sherpath is the primary academic platform for nursing coursework, EAQs, and simulation activities. Its repeated failure represents a foundational infrastructure concern. See also {{HU|HU-001}} and {{HU|HU-044}}.

<span id="HU-043"></span>
=== HU-043: At start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Process Gap / Student Communication Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At the start of Clinical IV (May 4, 2026), multiple students' course appeared with an instructor (Professor Celia) who then disappeared along with all course announcements; students had no assigned instructor at the start of a clinical course.

'''Evidence.''' MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (May 4, 2026): Student AG, Student BD, Student BC, and Student C all confirmed their Clinical IV instructor had disappeared and announcements were deleted. Student CU asked whether anyone else had Beasley, noting her announcement from the previous day had disappeared overnight. Student J noted that the professor seen that morning was no longer listed on the course, and the announcement was gone with her.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CU and Student J described the clinical instructor's announcement disappearing overnight and expressed frustration that the professor who had posted that morning was no longer listed on the course, taking the announcement away along with the instructor.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: faculty must be sufficient in number and qualified; students must have consistent, accessible faculty for program courses. Handbook p.18 Chain of Communication. Losing a clinical course instructor on the first day of the semester, with no advance notice and deleted announcements, deprives students of the orientation, syllabus, and clinical expectations they need to begin clinical safely.

'''Impact.''' Students beginning Clinical IV had no instructor on day one, no access to course announcements, and no ability to email the prior instructor through Canvas. The loss of a clinical instructor at the start of a clinical course creates both academic and patient safety risks.

'''Notes.''' This occurred on May 4, 2026, the first day of the next semester. Multiple students in the GroupMe noted confusion about assignments and whether they had Sherpath requirements. The faculty transition was handled with no advance communication.

<span id="HU-075"></span>
=== HU-075: Sherpath grade transfer failures caused actual course failures in Spring 2025 cohort; multiple students appealing failures attributable to platform errors rather than academic performance ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier/Sherpath) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The Sherpath platform's failure to correctly transfer grades to Canvas, combined with grades being changed in Canvas without explanation, caused multiple students in the Spring 2025 MSN-DE cohort to fail courses and be required to file appeals. This represents a substantial escalation of {{HU|HU-041}}: where {{HU|HU-041}} documented platform reliability failures and student anxiety, this issue documents actual academic harm (course failures) traceable to the same platform issues.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student D (Apr 26, 2025), Spring 2025 cohort student: constant issues with grades not transferring to Canvas, grades transferring incorrectly, and course grades frequently changed with no explanation, with several cohort members reporting a course failure attributable to the issue and pursuing appeals. Student D (Feb 20, 2025): described course grades changing daily due to technology problems, completed assignments recorded as zeros, and students spending an ungodly amount of time managing the failures to protect data integrity. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D described constant problems with grades not transferring to Canvas or transferring incorrectly, course grades changing with no explanation, and said several cohort members reported failing a class because of the issue and were pursuing appeals; Student D also described grades changing daily and completed assignments being recorded as zeros, requiring students to spend excessive time managing the technology failures to protect their academic standing.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support student learning; institutionally caused platform failures cannot fairly be the basis for course failure. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): digital learning platforms must be accessible and functional. Handbook p.20 (grade appeal procedures). Due process principles in higher education (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961)): students must have meaningful access to academic integrity in the grading system. 34 CFR §668.14: institutional administrative capability requires functional grading infrastructure.

'''Impact.''' Students who failed courses due to Sherpath grade transfer errors face academic probation, required course retakes (with $500 fees per {{HU|HU-060}}), delayed graduation, extended tuition costs, and potential financial aid eligibility impact ({{HU|HU-048}} GradPLUS rule, {{HU|HU-059}} aid cap). The institution's burden-shifting posture, requiring students to file appeals to correct institutionally caused failures, places the cost of platform errors on the students rather than the institution or vendor. The compound effect of Sherpath failures plus the {{HU|HU-074}} escalated HESI weighting (where 82% of course grade depends on HESI exams that themselves depend on Sherpath integration) means platform failures can cascade into course failures with no recoverable remedy.

'''Notes.''' This issue is a direct extension of {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath chronic platform failures) with new evidence of actual academic harm. The Spring 2025 cohort represents a particularly severe case because it coincided with the rollout of Sherpath as the primary platform replacing Realizeit ({{HU|HU-076}}). Verification: institutional records of Spring 2025 grade appeals, the categorization of those appeals (academic vs. platform-error), and resolution outcomes. The combination of {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-057}} (duplicate Sherpath assignments), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), and this issue constitutes a comprehensive vendor management failure with documented student harm.

<span id="HU-076"></span>
=== HU-076: Lead: the predecessor Realizeit LMS produced two distinct failures (grades not recorded despite completion, and a question format that did not match HESI/NCLEX); see HU-076a, HU-076b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (two independent problems)
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for two distinct failures of the predecessor Realizeit LMS (used before Sherpath), documented in the Facebook group export: {{HU|HU-076a}} (Realizeit failed to record grades despite student screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation) and {{HU|HU-076b}} (Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams). These are a separate predecessor platform, not a subset of the Sherpath issues. See each sub-issue.

'''Notes.''' Split from the original combined {{HU|HU-076}} on 2026-06-06; existing references to {{HU|HU-076}} resolve to this lead. The transition from Realizeit to Sherpath did not resolve LMS failures. Reported by Student AZ, Student AY, and others (2022 to 2024 cohorts); documented by the reporting student. Parts: {{HU|HU-076a}}, {{HU|HU-076b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath LMS failures), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-074}} (HESI weighting).

<span id="HU-076a"></span>
=== HU-076a: Realizeit failed to record grades despite screenshots of completion, requiring repeated IT escalation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| LMS Failure: Grades Not Recorded Despite Completion
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' On Realizeit, a student's grade would not record, showing the quiz as not done (0/0) even though the student had screenshots proving completion, requiring back and forth with IT to fix; the student reported that numerous students had the same issue (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AZ (September 27, 2023): when she first started, Realizeit would not record her grade and kept saying she did not do the quiz (0/0) although she had screenshots that she did, and she had to go back and forth with IT to fix it; numerous students had the same issues.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AZ reported that when she first started using Realizeit, the platform would not record her grade and repeatedly showed a quiz as not completed (0/0) even though she had screenshots proving she had finished it, and that she had to go back and forth with IT to get it corrected, adding that numerous other students had the same problem.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology resources must support learning; records integrity requires accurate grade recording; Section 508 (functional platforms). Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. Burden-shift pattern parallels {{HU|HU-023}}.

'''Impact.''' Students had to advocate individually with IT to have completed work recorded, a burden-shift onto students.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AZ; documented by the reporting student.

<span id="HU-076b"></span>
=== HU-076b: Realizeit question format did not match the HESI/NCLEX style of the high-stakes exams ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Curriculum-Assessment Misalignment: LMS Format Unlike HESI/NCLEX
! Date added
| 2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Vendor Management
|}
'''Finding.''' Students reported that Realizeit questions were not in HESI or NCLEX style, so the high-stakes HESI exams felt like a whole new format relative to what students practiced on the LMS (September 27, 2023).

'''Evidence.''' Facebook comment by Student AY (September 27, 2023): Realizeit questions are not HESI or NCLEX style, so when it comes to those exams it is a whole new level.

'''Reported statement.''' Student AY reported that Realizeit's question format did not match HESI or NCLEX style, so encountering the high-stakes exams felt like an entirely different and unfamiliar level of difficulty.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: course content and assessment must be aligned. A format mismatch between the LMS and the exams that carry the majority of the grade is a curriculum-assessment alignment failure. Lead: {{HU|HU-076}}. The mismatch persisted into Sherpath ({{HU|HU-044}}).

'''Impact.''' Students could score well on LMS content while remaining unprepared for the differently formatted high-stakes exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-076}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student AY; documented by the reporting student.

<span id="HU-082"></span>
=== HU-082: Spring 2025 system-wide grade transfer crisis: affecting 'hundreds of students'; recurring problem across multiple semesters with ZERO institutional communication ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Mass System-Caused Course Failures
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT / Registrar / Academic Affairs / Dr. Prashad / Shannon Bishop / David Steele
|}
'''Finding.''' A system-wide grade transfer failure in Spring 2025 caused passing students to receive failing grades in Canvas and the official records system. Anonymous member 569 confirmed the crisis affected "hundreds of students." Documented individual cases include: Student B (Clinical II 86% became an F; summer classes auto-canceled); Student BM (2 A's and a B uploaded as 2 F's; withdrawn from program); Anonymous 510 (an A transferred as a B); Student AE (F from incomplete, financial aid affected); Student BN; Student BO; Student BP (still not enrolled in correct classes at next semester start). Zero official institutional communication was sent; students discovered the error only by monitoring their own grades. Student V confirmed this is a RECURRING problem: she experienced the same issue a few semesters earlier in the same class, and it was not fixed until several weeks into the new semester. Student B stated she was prepared to email the local press in Wisconsin. Escalation chain: Dr. Prashad to Shannon Bishop to Tricia Wagner to Sam (student services) to David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu), who ultimately resolved some cases.

'''Evidence.''' Facebook post by Student B (Apr 26, 2025) asking whether others were affected by the Spring grading issue. Student BM (Apr 26, 2025) reported two A's and a B being uploaded as two F's, resulting in withdrawal. Anonymous member 569 (Apr 27, 2025) confirmed the issue affected hundreds of students and was a system error, not a syllabus issue. Student B (Apr 30, 2025) reported her grades had still not been corrected with summer classes starting the following Monday. Student V (Apr 30, 2025) confirmed the same problem had occurred to her a few semesters earlier in the same class. Student B (Apr 26, 2025) reported zero communication from administration despite the institution's promptness in emailing about late payments. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 569 confirmed the grading error affected hundreds of students and was a system error rather than a syllabus issue. Student B reported that, as of April 30, her grades still had not been corrected even though summer classes were starting the following Monday, and separately noted that the institution had sent zero communication about the issue despite promptly emailing students about late payments. Student V confirmed the same problem had occurred to her in an earlier semester in the same class and was not fixed until several weeks into the following term.

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional grade recording infrastructure. ACEN Standard 5: technology must support student learning without causing academic harm. Due process (Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F.2d 150, 5th Cir. 1961): students may not be dismissed or academically penalized without meaningful process. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have the right to accurate educational records. Institutional failure to communicate a known system error that is causing erroneous course failures constitutes an administrative capability failure under 34 CFR §668.14. The recurring nature across multiple semesters establishes a pattern rather than an isolated incident.

'''Impact.''' Affected students experienced wrongful course failures on official transcripts, auto-cancellation of the next semester's enrollment, disruption to financial aid eligibility, delayed graduation, scholarship application harm (unofficial transcripts showing F grades), and extreme emotional distress. The zero-communication approach placed the burden of discovery and remediation on students: students had to individually email faculty, program chairs, and registrar staff to trigger corrections. Student AE reported the error caused canceled classes and financial aid issues. Student BP (May 4, 2025) reported still not being enrolled in the correct classes for the semester.

'''Notes.''' Recurring problem: Student V's statement that this happened a few semesters ago, in the same class, establishes this as an unresolved systemic issue rather than a first-time event. The institution has been aware of this failure mode for multiple semesters and has not implemented a structural fix. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-076}} (Realizeit failures). This issue extends {{HU|HU-075}} significantly: where {{HU|HU-075}} documented a general pattern, this issue establishes the Spring 2025 mass event with named individuals, documented cascading harms, and recurring history.

<span id="HU-092"></span>
=== HU-092: Compliance system failures May 2026: Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration not transferring documents with clinical deadline imminent and no institutional response ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Platform Integration Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Clinical Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, one day before clinical deadline) reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with documents also unable to be attached directly in MyClinicalExchange. A second student in the same thread confirmed the same issue. This documents that as of May 2026, the Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration is failing, preventing students from demonstrating clinical compliance, and institutional support is unresponsive to urgent requests.

'''Evidence.''' Handle 2 (May 4, 2026, [post link redacted]): reported the same integration failure, an imminent deadline, no response to help requests, and no location to upload Fit Testing or orientation modules referenced in the compliance email. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Handle 2 reported that none of the completed compliance documentation was transferring from Complio to MyClinicalExchange, that the clinical deadline was the next day, and that requests for help had gone unanswered, with the system also not allowing direct attachment of documents or providing a place to upload required orientation modules.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting clinical compliance must function reliably. Students cannot be denied clinical access for compliance failures caused by institutional platform integration failures. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure. Unresponsive support during an urgent compliance deadline with the following day's deadline approaching constitutes an administrative capability failure.

'''Impact.''' Students unable to demonstrate clinical compliance due to platform integration failures risk clinical dismissal, an outcome with cascading academic consequences (course failure, graduation delay). The unresponsiveness to help requests compounds the harm.

'''Notes.''' This is consistent with the long-standing pattern of compliance platform failures (CastleBranch/Complio issues documented since Cohort 1 in 2023). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 grade crisis).

<span id="HU-100"></span>
=== HU-100: EAQ (Elsevier Adaptive Quizzing) questions documented incorrect; grade conversion ratio mismatch: 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in Canvas gradebook; Student D confirmed 'SEVERAL' incorrect questions ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Third-Party Platform Content Errors / Grade Calculation Discrepancy
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management (Elsevier) / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) documented two distinct EAQ problems. First, question content errors: she reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue. Second, a grade conversion ratio discrepancy: students may score 95% on an EAQ but have it appear as 18/20 in the Canvas gradebook, meaning the gradebook score does not reflect the actual percentage earned. Student D advised students approaching course failure to review their EAQs for challengeable questions and to calculate the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook, as a potential recovery strategy. This indicates the mismatch is known, recurring, and exploitable as a grade-recovery mechanism, but only by students sophisticated enough to identify it. An anonymous student (Aug 24, 2025) documented all Sherpath assignments at 100% and all EAQs below 100%, with no ability to redo custom EAQs, ending the course at 79.8%.

'''Evidence.''' Student D (Aug 25, 2025) advised reviewing EAQs to challenge missed questions, reported experiencing several incorrect EAQ questions, and described calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook: for example, a 95% EAQ score appearing as 18/20. Anonymous member (Aug 24, 2025) noted that custom EAQs below 100% could not be redone; Anonymous member 672 (Aug 25, 2025) confirmed those EAQs cannot be redone. Source group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026): Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Student D reported experiencing several EAQ questions being incorrect and stated there was definitely a content issue; she added that calculating the conversion ratio applied to the gradebook could reveal cases where a 95% EAQ score appears as 18/20 in the gradebook.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: third-party platforms used for graded assessment must provide accurate content and accurate grade reporting. Elsevier EAQ incorrect questions constitute a vendor content failure that Herzing, as the contracting institution, bears responsibility for auditing and correcting. The grade conversion ratio mismatch, where a student's actual percentage is silently compressed when transferred to Canvas, is a data integrity failure: the gradebook does not accurately reflect student performance. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain accurate academic records. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): students have a right to accurate educational records; a gradebook that silently understates performance violates that right. The non-redoable nature of custom EAQs means students have no mechanism to recover from incorrect questions they answered wrong, compounding the harm.

'''Impact.''' Students who lose points due to incorrect EAQ questions cannot challenge or redo them, making the error permanent in their grade. Students who don't know to calculate the conversion ratio cannot identify the discrepancy. The 79.8% student ({{HU|HU-095}}), who ended 0.2% below the passing threshold with all Sherpath assignments at 100%, may have been pushed below the threshold by EAQ conversion ratio errors or incorrect questions. Given that even a fraction of a point triggers a 4-month delay and a course retake fee ({{HU|HU-095}}, {{HU|HU-060}}), undetected EAQ errors can have severe academic and financial consequences.

'''Notes.''' This issue compounds {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath teaching incorrect content), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covering untaught content). The EAQ platform (Elsevier) is separate from Sherpath, but both are Elsevier products, suggesting a vendor-wide quality control issue. The fact that Student D publicly advised students to audit their EAQ conversion ratios as a grade-recovery strategy indicates this is a known workaround, not a rare anomaly. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-012}} (seven grades changed simultaneously), {{HU|HU-082}} (Spring 2025 mass grade transfer crisis).

<span id="HU-112"></span>
=== HU-112: Lead: NSG525 and Pathophysiology Review Week 1 quiz content errors (duplicate identical answer choices across at least two courses, wrong clinical units with a typo, and a remediation that shifted the burden onto students); see HU-112a, HU-112b, HU-112c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (assessment content errors and remediation)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Vendor Management / Faculty / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for Week 1 quiz content errors in the May 2026 semester. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-112a}} (duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, documented in NSG525 and confirmed by faculty escalation in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, establishing a systemic platform-level problem), {{HU|HU-112b}} (reference values labeled with incorrect clinical units, with pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L, plus a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content), and {{HU|HU-112c}} (the institutional remediation, manual grading with no extension and no restoration of lost quiz attempts, shifted the burden onto students, with two faculty giving conflicting timelines). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' NSG525 (Clinical II / Med-Surg I) Week 1 Quiz Screenshots, the reporting student, May 7, 2026; Email thread, Sandra Russell J.D. BSMT to Dr. Ashley Jennings, May 5, 2026.

'''Notes.''' Documented May 7, 2026 by the reporting student. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-112}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-112a}}, {{HU|HU-112b}}, {{HU|HU-112c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-088}} (HESI covers untaught content), {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors), {{HU|HU-044}} (Sherpath incorrect content), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal), {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance).

<span id="HU-112a"></span>
=== HU-112a: Quiz questions contain duplicate identical answer choices that make the keyed answer undefined, across at least two Week 1 courses (NSG525 and the Pathophysiology Review) ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Validity: Duplicate Answer Choices
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / IT / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Two NSG525 Week 1 quiz questions contained duplicate identical answer choices: Question 9 (a select-all-that-apply item) listed Increased body temperature as both the first and fifth choice, and Question 7 (a single-select item) listed Respiratory acidosis as both the third and fourth choice, so the student cannot know which identical option the system treats as correct. The same problem appeared in the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review, a different course, where a student raised it with adjunct faculty member Dr. Ashley Jennings, who replied that she had sent the inaccuracy to leadership and could not unilaterally throw out questions or curve the quiz, establishing the problem as systemic across at least two courses in the same week.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshots from the reporting student, May 7, 2026 (NSG525 Week 1 Canvas quiz, Questions 7 and 9). Email thread on the Week 1 Pathophysiology Review: Sandra Russell J.D., BSMT (ASCP) to Dr. Ashley Jennings DNP MSNEd APRN FNP (Adjunct Faculty), May 5, 2026, 11:02 PM, and Dr. Jennings's reply at 11:17 PM. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026); Pathophysiology Review email thread (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I understand this can be frustrating and I have sent this inaccuracy to leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot make the decision to throw out questions or curve the quiz.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment instruments must be accurate, valid, and clearly worded); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including quality control over graded assessment content). A question with two identical options cannot reliably measure knowledge. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. Extends {{HU|HU-100}} (EAQ errors) to a third assessment type, Canvas quizzes.

'''Impact.''' A student who selects the clinically correct answer may or may not receive credit depending on which identical option the system has keyed, an outcome determined by system error rather than knowledge; in a program where a fraction of a point can trigger a delay and retake, this is direct academic and financial harm.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The clinically correct answer to Question 7 (respiratory acidosis) is identifiable from the values, but the duplicate option makes the keyed answer indeterminate.

<span id="HU-112b"></span>
=== HU-112b: Quiz reference values are labeled with incorrect clinical units (pH and PaCO2 both labeled mEq/L) and contain a typographical error, teaching clinically incorrect content ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Assessment Content Accuracy: Incorrect Clinical Units
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Faculty / Vendor Management / Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' NSG525 Question 7 labeled the pH reference range with mEq/L, although pH is a dimensionless logarithmic scale with no unit, and labeled carbon dioxide (PaCO2) with mEq/L, although the standard clinical unit for PaCO2 is mmHg; the question also contained a typographical error (rang instead of range). Teaching that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L is clinically incorrect.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot from the reporting student, May 7, 2026: NSG525 Question 7 reference values labeled pH 7.35-7.45 mEq/L and CO2 35-45 mEq/L, with Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L. Source group: NSG525 Week 1 quiz screenshots (May 7, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>pH range 7.35-7.45 mEq/L [pH has no units]. Bicarbonate rang 22-26 mEq/L.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 (assessment content must be accurate); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (quality control over assessment content). Incorrect unit labels on clinical reference values teach incorrect clinical science, a patient-safety concern for nurses interpreting lab values. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}.

'''Impact.''' Students learning that pH or PaCO2 is measured in mEq/L are being taught clinically incorrect information that could affect patient care.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

<span id="HU-112c"></span>
=== HU-112c: The institutional remediation (manual grading, no extension, and no restoration of lost quiz attempts) shifted the burden of the quiz errors onto students, and two faculty gave conflicting timelines ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Remediation / Recourse Failure; Contradictory Faculty Communications
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Academic Affairs / Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' After acknowledging the duplicate-answer errors, the institution chose to manually grade the affected items but granted no extension and did not restore the quiz attempts students used while guessing among the erroneous options; the quiz allowed ten attempts, and manual grading does not return attempts spent on system errors. Two faculty gave conflicting timelines for the fix on the same day.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu) stated the college was aware of two duplicate-answer questions and would manually grade those items, that no extensions would be granted, and that she was applying the correct credit. Dr. Stacey Gombar stated the team was working to resolve the issue and would post an announcement. Dr. Gombar indicated grading this week while Dr. Gregg indicated grading the prior day. The reporting student documented that students do not get to retake the maximum attempts after the fix. Source group: Faculty communications to the reporting student, May 2026.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I have verified, and no extensions will be granted. I am, however, in the process of manually grading and applying the correct credit.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 and 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (institutions must remediate assessment errors fairly). Manual grading without restoring lost attempts or granting a fair retake shifts the burden of the institution's error onto students; conflicting faculty timelines reflect inadequate coordination. Lead: {{HU|HU-112}}. See {{HU|HU-031}} (contradictory faculty guidance), {{HU|HU-095}} (two-fail dismissal).

'''Impact.''' Students who used quiz attempts guessing among erroneous options lose those attempts permanently, and the remediation does not restore a fair opportunity to reach the maximum allowed attempts.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-112}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Institutional acknowledgments on record from Dr. Gregg and Dr. Gombar.

<span id="HU-120"></span>
=== HU-120: Lead: the Canvas/Instructure ShinyHunters breach (May 2026) exposed student PII and private messages, Herzing had not notified students as of May 7, and clinical message content raises a HIPAA risk; see HU-120a, HU-120b, HU-120c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED for the breach and the exposure of PII and messages; the HIPAA exposure in HU-120c is POSSIBLE pending verification
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (data breach, notification failure, HIPAA risk)
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / Herzing Administration / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the Canvas/Instructure cybersecurity breach by the ShinyHunters extortion group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026, and Herzing's response. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-120a}} (the breach exposed user PII, names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, and billions of private messages, and the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage labeled scheduled maintenance was active breach remediation), {{HU|HU-120b}} (Herzing had not notified its students of the breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA notification obligations), and {{HU|HU-120c}} (a HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed messages). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot herzing.instructure.com (May 7, 2026), the reporting student; WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Notes.''' ShinyHunters is a documented extortion group with prior breaches including AT&T, Ticketmaster, and Santander; its ransom deadline was May 6, 2026. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-120}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-120a}}, {{HU|HU-120b}}, {{HU|HU-120c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only, Canvas single point of failure), {{HU|HU-112}} (quiz errors), {{HU|HU-116}} (mid-week assignments), {{HU|HU-117}} (professor resignation).

<span id="HU-120a"></span>
=== HU-120a: The Canvas/Instructure breach exposed user PII (names, emails, student IDs) and billions of private messages; the May 7 herzing.instructure.com outage was active breach remediation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Active Cybersecurity Breach / Student Data Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Instructure / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' Canvas/Instructure experienced an active breach by the ShinyHunters group on or around May 5 to 6, 2026. ShinyHunters claimed nearly 9,000 schools and 275 million individuals were affected, with several billion private messages and a breached Salesforce instance. Instructure confirmed exposed data included names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages among users, and responded by revoking privileged credentials, deploying patches, rotating keys, and increasing monitoring. The scheduled maintenance message at herzing.instructure.com at 4:18 PM on May 7, 2026 coincided with this remediation.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of herzing.instructure.com (4:18 PM, May 7, 2026); WFTV Channel 9 (May 7, 2026); KUTV 2News (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026) reporting Instructure's confirmation and the ShinyHunters leak-site warning. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); WFTV (May 7, 2026); KUTV (May 6 to 7, 2026); SecurityAffairs (May 5, 2026).

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Nearly 9,000 schools worldwide affected. 275 million individuals data. Several billions of private messages among students and teachers. Your Salesforce instance was also breached.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g): student IDs, names, and Canvas messages are protected education records; a breach implicates safeguarding and notification duties. 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and secure technology). Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Every Herzing MSN-DE student's Canvas data (name, email, student ID, and private messages with faculty) was potentially exposed; the billions of exposed messages may include clinical details, personal circumstances, and academic appeals.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

<span id="HU-120b"></span>
=== HU-120b: Herzing had not notified its students of the Canvas breach as of May 7, 2026, raising FERPA breach-notification concerns ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Critical
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Breach Notification Failure / FERPA
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Herzing IT / CISO
|}
'''Finding.''' As of May 7, 2026, Herzing had not notified its students that their Canvas data may have been exposed in the Instructure breach, leaving students unaware their information was compromised. The absence of timely notification is itself a compliance concern.

'''Evidence.''' No student breach notification from Herzing as of May 7, 2026, against contemporaneous public reporting (WFTV, KUTV, SecurityAffairs) confirming the breach; herzing.instructure.com showed only a scheduled maintenance message. Source group: herzing.instructure.com screenshot (May 7, 2026); contemporaneous news reporting.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Canvas is currently undergoing scheduled maintenance. Check back soon. [herzing.instructure.com, 4:18 PM, May 7, 2026]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and associated guidance on safeguarding education records and notifying affected individuals of unauthorized disclosures; institutional duty to inform students of a breach affecting their records. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' Students who are not notified cannot take protective steps (monitoring, password changes, or caution about exposed communications); a labeled maintenance message in place of a breach notice leaves students misinformed about the cause of the outage.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Monitor Herzing communications for any subsequent breach notification.

<span id="HU-120c"></span>
=== HU-120c: HIPAA risk if MSN-DE clinical discussion messages containing patient information were among the exposed Canvas messages ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE, conditional on clinical messages containing patient information being among the exposed data
|-
! Issue type
| Potential HIPAA Breach Exposure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Administration / Compliance / Clinical Coordination
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, if MSN-DE clinical discussion posts or messages contained patient information and were among the exposed Canvas messages, the breach could trigger obligations under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. Whether such content was exposed is not yet established and requires verification.

'''Evidence.''' Instructure's confirmation that messages among users were exposed; the program's clinical components, in which students discuss patient scenarios, raise the possibility that some messages contained patient information. Whether any such message was in the exposed set is unverified. Source group: Instructure incident reporting; program clinical structure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>indications are that the information involved consists of certain identifying information of users at affected institutions, such as names, email addresses, and student ID numbers, as well as messages among users.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HIPAA Breach Notification Rule (45 C.F.R. 164.400-414): notification obligations may arise if protected health information was breached. Lead: {{HU|HU-120}}.

'''Impact.''' If patient information was exposed, affected individuals and authorities may need to be notified, and the institution and its clinical partners could face additional obligations and liability.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-120}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Marked POSSIBLE pending verification of whether clinical messages containing patient information were among the exposed data.

<span id="HU-122"></span>
=== HU-122: Multiple assignments visible in NSG525 gradebook and calendar marked as required but contain absolutely no content; assignments also do not appear in Sherpath; students cannot complete assignments that have no content; due dates active ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Empty Assignments with Active Due Dates / Platform Synchronization Failure
! Date added
| 2026-05-07
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Stacey Gombar / Dr. Heather Gregg / IT Department
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student reported to Dr. Stacey Gombar and Dr. Heather Gregg that multiple assignments in NSG525 are visible in the gradebook and on the calendar as required assignments with active due dates, but contain absolutely no content when opened. These assignments also do not appear in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar's response requested a specific example, indicating she was not aware of the extent of the issue and had not proactively identified it. Students are in a position where required graded assignments are due, are counted in the gradebook, but have no content to complete, creating a potential grade impact from an institutional platform/content loading failure. This is distinct from {{HU|HU-113}} (duplicate assignments); this issue documents assignments that exist as shells with no instructional content at all.

'''Evidence.''' Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg (May 2026), stating there were several assignments in the gradebook and calendar that were required but had absolutely no content and also did not show up in Sherpath. Dr. Gombar replied asking the reporting student to provide a specific example so she could look into it. This indicates the issue was not known to faculty before the reporting student raised it. Source group: Email: the reporting student to Dr. Gombar / Dr. Gregg, May 2026; Dr. Gombar reply requesting example.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>There are also several assignments in the gradebook and on the calendar that are required but have absolutely no content. They also do not show up in Sherpath.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must ensure that graded assignments have accessible content before imposing due dates. ACEN Standard 4: curriculum must be delivered through functional, content-complete learning systems. An assignment that exists in the gradebook with a due date but contains no content is an administrative failure that places students at risk of grade penalties for work that cannot be completed. The Sherpath synchronization failure (assignments not appearing in Sherpath) adds a platform integration layer to the issue, consistent with the pattern in {{HU|HU-092}} (Complio-to-MyClinicalExchange integration failure) and {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures).

'''Impact.''' Students with empty required assignments due this week face a choice between waiting for faculty to fix the content and potentially missing the deadline, or submitting incomplete or placeholder work. Either path risks a grade penalty. In a program where 0.2% can trigger a 4-month retake ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade points lost due to empty assignments with active due dates represent a concrete institutional-caused academic harm. Dr. Gombar's request for a specific example suggests the issue was not on faculty radar, meaning other students who did not report it may be silently affected.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Gombar offered a 1:1 meeting and noted a sync session recording had been posted covering housekeeping details. This is consistent with the institutional pattern of deflecting to individual meetings rather than addressing systemic issues. The empty assignment issue in NSG525 Week 1 occurs simultaneously with duplicate quiz answers ({{HU|HU-112}}), duplicate cross-course assignments ({{HU|HU-113}}), mid-week assignment additions in NSG621 ({{HU|HU-116}}), professor resignation ({{HU|HU-117}}), and the Canvas cybersecurity breach ({{HU|HU-120}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (Sherpath platform failures), {{HU|HU-075}} (grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-092}} (platform integration failures).

<span id="HU-129"></span>
=== HU-129: Sherpath LMS platform outage May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session; platform failure during active peer tutoring disrupted session ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Sherpath Platform Outage During Active Academic Session
! Date added
| 2026-05-17
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | IT Department / Sherpath (Elsevier) / Knack Tutoring Coordinator
|}
'''Finding.''' Sherpath went down on May 15, 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session. Knack is a peer tutoring platform used to connect students who need academic support with qualified peer tutors. The reporting student was serving as a peer tutor leading an active tutoring session when Sherpath became unavailable, disrupting the session. This documents a Sherpath outage during Week 2 of the May 2026 semester, consistent with the documented pattern of recurring Sherpath outages across multiple semesters ({{HU|HU-041}}, {{HU|HU-059}}, {{HU|HU-075}}, {{HU|HU-092}}). The outage affected not just the student's own academic work but also his ability to fulfill a peer support role for other students who were seeking tutoring assistance.

'''Evidence.''' Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026. Source group: Weekly Report week ending May 17, 2026; the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Sherpath went down on 15 May 2026 while the reporting student was leading a Knack Tutoring Session.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 5: technology systems supporting student learning must be reliable and consistently available. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional academic technology infrastructure. A Sherpath outage during an active tutoring session disrupts both the tutor and the students being tutored. This is the fifth documented Sherpath outage event across the program ({{HU|HU-041}} documents recurring outages; {{HU|HU-059}} documents specific outage; {{HU|HU-075}} documents grade transfer failures; {{HU|HU-092}} documents Complio-MyClinicalExchange integration failures; {{HU|HU-129}} documents May 15, 2026 outage during active tutoring). The pattern establishes systemic Sherpath reliability failure rather than isolated incidents.

'''Impact.''' The Knack Tutoring Session was disrupted mid-session. Students who had scheduled time with the reporting student as their peer tutor lost that session due to the platform failure. The reporting student, who was providing a student support service, was unable to continue. In a program where students document difficulty finding adequate academic support and rely heavily on peer resources ({{HU|HU-102}}, no textbooks, modules only), a tutoring session disruption compounds existing academic support deficits.

'''Notes.''' Knack is a third-party peer tutoring platform. The reporting student's participation as a Knack tutor confirms his role as a peer academic resource within the program community, consistent with his earlier role setting up the September 2025 GroupMe and creating the student wiki. The Sherpath outage on May 15 occurred the same week as Canvas cybersecurity breach remediation ({{HU|HU-120}}, May 7), no clinical placement ({{HU|HU-128}}), accommodation blocked ({{HU|HU-125}}), and quiz deadline discrepancy ({{HU|HU-126}}). Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-041}} (recurring Sherpath failures), {{HU|HU-059}} (Sherpath specific outage), {{HU|HU-075}} (Sherpath grade transfer failures), {{HU|HU-102}} (modules-only curriculum makes platform reliability critical).

<span id="HU-168"></span>
=== HU-168: Lead: the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) produced a grading and submission disconnect: the instructor reported no score in Elsevier; Canvas shows 0/100 and No Submission; the NSG523 course grade dropped approximately 69 percentage points in 15 seconds as documented in sequential dashboard screenshots; and a weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification was not resolved before the 0 was entered; see HU-168a through HU-168d ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect; Canvas 0/100 and No Submission; 69-point course grade drop in 15 seconds; unresolved screenshot requirement before grading)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523, Herzing University Orlando / Online MSN Direct Entry) / Herzing LMS / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for a cluster of grading and records issues arising from the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I HESI Exam 1, completed by the reporting student on June 13, 2026. The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079) confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026 with a HESI score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. On June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty) emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score in Elsevier and that a screenshot submitted weeks earlier did not show the exam date as required. Canvas shows the Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 assignment at Grade 0/100 with a No Submission status, and Dr. Brown posted a Canvas comment at 1:14 PM stating no score for exam. Sequential Canvas dashboard screenshots taken 15 seconds apart at 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM document the NSG523 course grade changing from 95.01% to 25.91%, a drop of approximately 69 percentage points. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-168a}} (HESI score present in Elsevier system but instructor reports no score, a score-transmission or access disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission status inconsistent with exam completion), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop observed in 15 seconds), and {{HU|HU-168d}} (weeks-old screenshot-requirement notification not resolved before the 0 was entered).

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C (Accommodations 250%), HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, Student ID p3641418, Delivery ID 905079. The HESI report was printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM, after the grading issue was discovered, establishing that the score was available in the Elsevier system. The Canvas assignment due date was 06/14 at 11:59 PM; the exam was taken on 06/13/2026 (before the due date). Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-168a}}, {{HU|HU-168b}}, {{HU|HU-168c}}, {{HU|HU-168d}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-167}} (NSG523 ProProctor Saturday failure, same exam context, June 13, 2026), {{HU|HU-167b}} (over 75-minute exam start delay before NSG523 exam).

<span id="HU-168a"></span>
=== HU-168a: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) is present in the Elsevier Testing and Remediation system as of June 13, 2026, but Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated on June 15 that she did not have a score entered in Elsevier: a score-transmission or instructor-access disconnect ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Score-Transmission or Score-Access Disconnect Between HESI System and Instructor View
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The HESI Assessment Results report (Elsevier Testing and Remediation, Delivery ID 905079, printed 6/15/2026) confirms the reporting student completed the NSG523 HESI Exam 1 on 06/13/2026, achieving a HESI Score of 1,224 and a Conversion Score of 99.99. In her June 15 email (1:13 PM, marked High Importance), Dr. Tanetshia Brown stated she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. These two facts are directly inconsistent: the exam was completed in the Elsevier-hosted HESI system and the results are retrievable (student printed the 16-page report on 6/15/2026), yet the instructor reports no score on her end. This points to a score-transmission failure between the HESI delivery and the instructor-facing Elsevier view, or an instructor-side access or lookup issue for this student or section.

'''Evidence.''' HESI Assessment Results report: the reporting student, Institution HERZING UNIVERSITY-ONLINE-RN, Date 06/13/2026, HESI Score 1,224, Conversion Score 99.99, Delivery ID 905079, Duration 98 minutes 15 seconds, printed 6/15/2026 8:25:03 PM. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (6/15/2026 1:13 PM) stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I do not have a score for you entered in Elsevier for that exam.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement, including reliable transmission of results). A score-transmission disconnect between a HESI delivery and the instructor's gradebook view means a completed, passing exam does not count toward the student's grade. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A Conversion Score of 99.99 (the effective maximum) not reaching the instructor's view results in a 0 being recorded for a 100-point exam, with a severe downstream effect on course standing.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). CONFIRMED: exam completion documented by HESI report; instructor non-receipt documented by email. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-168b"></span>
=== HU-168b: Canvas shows Grade 0/100 and No Submission for NSG523 Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, with an instructor Canvas comment stating no score for exam, despite the exam being completed on June 13, 2026 with a Conversion Score of 99.99 ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Canvas 0/100 and No Submission Status Inconsistent With Exam Completion
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' The Canvas submission page for NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1 shows Grade: 0/100 and a No Submission status on the left panel, and a Canvas comment from Dr. Tanetshia Brown timestamped Jun 15 at 1:14pm reading No score for exam. The HESI report confirms the exam was completed on 06/13/2026, before the assignment due date of 06/14 at 11:59 PM. The No Submission status in Canvas is inconsistent with the exam having been completed. This may reflect a submission-type mismatch (the assignment requires a screenshot upload and a score transmission from Elsevier, and one or both may not have processed correctly), but the effect on the student's grade is the same as if the exam had not been taken at all. Dr. Brown also stated in her email that a screenshot previously uploaded did not show the exam date as required, which may have contributed to the No Submission assessment.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas submission screenshot (Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM): NSG523-7E, Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Grade 0/100, No Submission, Canvas comment by Dr. Tanetshia Brown DNP MSN RN (Jun 15 at 1:14pm) reading No score for exam. HESI report confirming exam completion 06/13/2026 with Conversion 99.99. Source group: Canvas submission screenshot (NSG523-7E Unit 6: HESI Exam 1, Jun 15, 2026, 3:22 PM); email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 1:13 PM, marked High Importance); Canvas dashboard screenshots (Jun 15, 2026, 3:36:06 PM and 3:36:21 PM); HESI Assessment Results report (HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1, Student: the reporting student, Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026, printed 06/15/2026 8:25:03 PM); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>No score for exam. [Canvas comment, Dr. Tanetshia Brown, Jun 15 at 1:14pm]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate academic records); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair academic standards and processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement). Grading a completed exam as 0/100 with No Submission because a score did not transmit or a deliverable had a formatting issue, without providing an opportunity to correct, raises a fair-process and records-accuracy concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-168}}.

'''Impact.''' A 0 on a 100-point exam assignment has an immediate and severe effect on the course grade, as documented in {{HU|HU-168c}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-168}} (lead). The assignment appears to have two components: a Canvas screenshot upload and an Elsevier score transmission. Whether the No Submission reflects the screenshot upload status, the score sync status, or both is not fully resolved from the available evidence. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-169"></span>
=== HU-169: Lead: reporter Student CK describes the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure the reporting student experienced (HU-168) across at least two of her own courses: a pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero despite a score existing in Elsevier, and the same failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam with no instructor response; the reporter's instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the Elsevier report list despite ProctorU confirming successful transmission, suggesting a systemic instructor-access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students; reported and unverified; see HU-169a through HU-169c ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (same accommodation exam score-transmission failure as {{HU|HU-168}}; reported for at least two courses; instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier report list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; unverified third-party account)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations (specific instructors not named by reporter)
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, this is a lead entry for a reported account by Student CK, a Herzing student who describes experiencing the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, NSG523). The reporter states the problem occurred in at least two of her courses. In the first instance, her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero; the reporter challenged this because she had her score, and she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion. In the second instance, the same failure occurred on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; the reporter emailed her instructor and had not received a response at the time of the message exchange. The reporter states her instructor told her the reporter's name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, which the reporter interpreted as evidence of something wrong. ProctorU confirmed to the reporter that her test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the problem is with instructor-level access to Elsevier and notes that her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help but there was no known follow-up. The account is attributed to the reporter and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first as corroboration of a possible systemic pattern. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-169a}} (path instructor zero resolved only after reporter provided screenshot and report), {{HU|HU-169b}} (Fundamentals exam same failure, instructor non-response), and {{HU|HU-169c}} (instructor confirmed name absent from Elsevier list; ProctorU confirmed transmission; systemic pattern implication).

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation.

'''Notes.''' Reporter's name as displayed in iMessage: Student CK. All statements attributed to reporter and marked POSSIBLE. The pattern, where ProctorU confirms successful transmission but the instructor does not see the student's name on the Elsevier report list, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor reported no score in Elsevier despite HESI report confirming completion). If corroborated, the pattern suggests a systemic Elsevier configuration or access issue affecting accommodated students rather than an isolated per-student error. Added 2026-06-15. Reporter Student CK (Herzing student, name as displayed; specific student ID not provided). Parts: {{HU|HU-169a}}, {{HU|HU-169b}}, {{HU|HU-169c}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (the reporting student, same score-transmission disconnect for NSG523 HESI Exam 1), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect specifically).

<span id="HU-169a"></span>
=== HU-169a: Reporter Student CK describes her pathophysiology instructor giving her a zero for an accommodated exam despite her having a score in Elsevier; the reporter had to provide a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate completion before the grade was corrected ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Exam Score Not Visible to Instructor; Zero Entered; Corrected Only After Student Provided Proof (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing pathophysiology instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her pathophysiology instructor gave her a zero for an accommodated exam. The reporter challenged this because she had her score in Elsevier. She states she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier and a copy of her report to demonstrate that she had completed the exam. This is the same pattern documented in {{HU|HU-168}}: an accommodated exam completed in the Elsevier system but not visible to the instructor, resulting in a zero that the student must correct by providing her own proof.

'''Evidence.''' According to the tracker, private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her pathophysiology instructor initially gave her a zero on an accommodated exam despite the score existing in Elsevier, and that she had to send the instructor a screenshot of Elsevier along with a copy of her report before the instructor would correct the grade.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate assessment of student achievement); ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309). A pattern in which accommodated students receive zeros because instructor-facing Elsevier access does not reflect completed exams, and must correct this themselves by providing proof, places an undue burden on students with disabilities and indicates a systemic accommodation-delivery failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' According to the tracker, if accurate, the reporter had to spend additional time and effort demonstrating exam completion to reverse a zero, a burden not experienced by students whose scores transmit correctly. The risk is that students who do not challenge the zero may lose the grade permanently.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Autocorrect artifacts in source noted in lead. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-169b"></span>
=== HU-169b: Reporter Student CK describes the same score-transmission failure recurring on a Fundamentals exam taken on a Friday; she emailed her instructor but had not received a response at the time of the text message exchange ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Recurrence of Score-Transmission Failure on Fundamentals Exam; Instructor Non-Response (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Fundamentals instructor (name not provided by reporter) / Elsevier-HESI
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that after experiencing the pathophysiology score-transmission failure, the same thing happened on a Fundamentals exam she took on a Friday. She states she emailed her instructor about the situation but had not heard back at the time of the message exchange with the reporting student. The recurrence across two different courses and two different instructors, with no instructor response on the second instance, suggests the problem is not limited to a single course or instructor configuration.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that the same score-transmission failure recurred on a Fundamentals exam taken the following Friday, and that she had emailed her instructor about it but had not received a response by the time she described the situation.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including reliable technology systems and timely institutional response); HLC Criterion 2.A (clear and fair academic processes); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309. Recurrence of the same score-transmission failure across multiple courses for the same accommodated student, without a timely instructor response on the second instance, points to a systemic rather than incidental failure. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate, the reporter faces the same unresolved zero on a second exam, with no instructor response, placing two separate course grades at risk from the same systemic failure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-169c"></span>
=== HU-169c: Reporter Student CK reports that her instructor confirmed her name did not appear on the instructor's Elsevier report list, and ProctorU confirmed the test was transmitted and marked as completed successfully in their system: pointing to an instructor-side Elsevier access or score-routing failure affecting accommodated students ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:12em" | Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Instructor Confirmed Name Absent From Elsevier Report List; ProctorU Confirmed Transmission; Systemic Pattern Concern (reported)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Herzing Academic Affairs / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing Testing and Accommodations
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporter states that her instructor told her she did not even see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, and that this is how the instructor and reporter determined something was wrong. The reporter states that she then contacted ProctorU, who confirmed the test was sent, her video was transmitted, and the test shows as completed successfully in ProctorU's system. The reporter speculates the issue is with instructor-level access to Elsevier, but notes uncertainty about how to fix it. Her Fundamentals instructor said she was going to seek additional help, but the reporter does not know what happened with that. This two-sided picture, ProctorU confirming successful delivery while the instructor does not see the student's name in Elsevier, is the same mechanism described in {{HU|HU-168a}} (instructor for the reporting student reporting no score in Elsevier despite a completed HESI report). If the pattern holds across multiple students, it indicates a systemic Elsevier configuration, access, or score-routing failure specific to accommodated exams rather than individual student or proctor error.

'''Evidence.''' Private text message conversation between the reporting student and Student CK (identified third party), screenshots taken June 15, 2026 (3:49:26 PM and 3:49:44 PM); provided by the reporting student. Note: autocorrect artifacts in source text: "evolved" interpreted as Elsevier; "Sam" interpreted as exam; "path instructor" interpreted as pathophysiology instructor. A third unidentified participant (phone number [phone redacted]) was also present in the conversation. The reporter also noted that her instructor had sent her the special link for accommodations, which added to her confusion about the cause. Source group: same private text message conversation described above.

'''Reported statement.''' Student CK reported that her instructor told her she did not see the reporter's name on the list of reports in Elsevier, which is how she determined something was wrong, and that when she reached out to ProctorU, ProctorU confirmed her test and video had been sent and showed as completed successfully in its system.

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional technology and vendor oversight); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable and consistent processes for all students); 42 U.S.C. 12189; 28 C.F.R. 36.309 (accommodations for examinations must be functional and consistently available). A systemic Elsevier report-list failure that causes accommodated students' names not to appear for their instructors, while non-accommodated students' names do appear, is an equity and accommodation-delivery concern. Combined with the identical pattern in {{HU|HU-168}}, this represents a recurring institutional deficiency. Recorded for review. Lead: {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Impact.''' If accurate across multiple students, the failure is not an isolated error but a systemic accommodation-delivery deficiency. Students who do not proactively challenge zeros or contact ProctorU themselves may permanently lose grades for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-169}} (lead). Reported account, unverified. The reporter notes the instructor sent a special link for accommodations, suggesting the accommodated exam routing itself may be the point of failure in Elsevier. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-171"></span>
=== HU-171: The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 score (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), absent from the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view as documented in HU-168a, became visible to Dr. Tanetshia Brown only at approximately 4:14 PM on June 15, 2026, over 51 hours after exam completion on June 13, and only after the reporting student sent her a screenshot of his HESI results as proof; Canvas was then updated from 0/100; resolution required direct student intervention rather than automatic system processes ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Elsevier (Evolve) Score-Transmission Delay Over 51 Hours; Resolution Requiring Manual Student Intervention
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Elsevier-HESI / Herzing LMS
|}
'''Finding.''' At 1:13 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student (marked High Importance) stating she did not have a score for him in Elsevier (Evolve) and that Canvas showed no submission. A 0/100 had been entered. The NSG523 HESI Exam 1 was completed on June 13, 2026 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99), over 51 hours earlier. The reporting student sent Dr. Brown a screenshot of his HESI results report. At 4:14 PM on June 15, Brown replied confirming she was now able to see the grade in Evolve and that Canvas had been updated. This sequence confirms three findings. First, the Elsevier score-transmission delay extended from the June 13 exam date to at least 1:13 PM on June 15, a gap of over 51 hours during which the score was not visible to the instructor. Second, the score became visible only after the reporting student provided proof by sending the screenshot, resolution was student-initiated rather than automatic. Third, the 0/100 entered in Canvas remained for the duration of this period and was corrected only after the reporting student's direct intervention. The immediate grade harm is now resolved; the systemic process failure is documented.

'''Evidence.''' Prior email from Dr. Brown at 1:13 PM same day stating she did not have a score entered in Elsevier for that exam. HESI Assessment Results report (Delivery ID 905079, exam date 06/13/2026). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:14 PM); provided by the reporting student; update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Thank you for the screenshot of your exam results. I also am now able to see your grade in Evolve. Your grade in Canvas has been updated.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including accurate and timely academic records and functional technology systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (fair and reliable academic processes); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment of student achievement). A score-transmission system that requires a student to manually provide proof of exam completion to an instructor, over 51 hours after the exam, in order to have a 0 reversed, does not meet administrative-capability or fair-process standards. The pattern is corroborated by a second student ({{HU|HU-169}}). See also {{HU|HU-168a}} (score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop).

'''Impact.''' The immediate harm (0/100 on a 100-point exam; NSG523 grade at 25.91%) was resolved after student intervention. Without the screenshot the reporting student provided, the 0 would likely have remained. Students who do not proactively challenge the zero, or who lack the ability to produce and send a HESI report, face permanent grade loss for completed exams.

'''Notes.''' The grade in Canvas is confirmed updated per Dr. Brown's 4:14 PM email. The term Evolve in Dr. Brown's email refers to the Elsevier Evolve platform (the same system referenced as Elsevier in {{HU|HU-168}}). Dr. Brown's phrasing explicitly links her newfound ability to see the score to receiving the screenshot, confirming the resolution was prompted by student-initiated documentation rather than automatic system correction. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-168}} cluster. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading and submission disconnect; lead cluster), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-168b}} (Canvas 0/100 and No Submission), {{HU|HU-168c}} (69-percentage-point course grade drop), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same Elsevier score-transmission failure pattern).

<span id="HU-172"></span>
=== HU-172: Lead: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email confirms she cannot determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure occurred and defers all investigation to IT; IT then closed INC0562442 by observing only that the professor had updated Canvas after seeing the grade; the stated resolution does not address the root cause of the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in HU-168 and HU-169; the systemic failure affecting accommodated students remains uninvestigated; see HU-172a and HU-172b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (institutional inability to explain Elsevier transmission failure; IT incident closed without root-cause investigation)
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk) / Herzing IT / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry documenting the institutional response to the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168}} and {{HU|HU-171}}. At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student acknowledging the situation was frustrating, stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred, and referring all further investigation to IT since a ticket had already been submitted. The Herzing IT Service Desk subsequently closed incident INC0562442 with a resolution note stating only that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating it in Canvas. The resolution is based entirely on the observation that the immediate symptom (the 0 grade) was corrected by the professor; it is not a technical investigation of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours. The underlying transmission failure affecting accommodated students therefore remains uninvestigated at both the faculty and IT levels. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-172a}} (Dr. Brown's admission that the system behavior cannot be explained, and deferral of investigation to IT) and {{HU|HU-172b}} (IT closure of INC0562442 without root-cause investigation).

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Dr. Brown's email at 4:26 PM follows her 4:14 PM email in which she confirmed the Canvas grade was updated. The 4:26 PM email is apparently a response to a follow-up inquiry from the reporting student about why the system failure occurred. The IT ticket short description is listed as Re: Test, suggesting the ticket was generated from or named after the email thread rather than as a formally titled incident report. Added 2026-06-15. Parts: {{HU|HU-172a}}, {{HU|HU-172b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK, same accommodation exam score-transmission pattern), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay resolved only by student-provided screenshot).

<span id="HU-172a"></span>
=== HU-172a: Dr. Tanetshia Brown's 4:26 PM email explicitly states she is unable to determine why the Elsevier (Evolve) system behavior occurred and refers all technical investigation to IT: an institutional admission that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure cannot be explained at the faculty or program level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Institutional Admission of Inability to Explain Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Investigation Deferred to IT
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Adjunct Faculty, NSG523) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At 4:26 PM on June 15, 2026, Dr. Tanetshia Brown emailed the reporting student stating she was unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. She noted that once the reporting student provided the screenshot, she was able to verify his results in Evolve and update Canvas. She directed all further investigation to IT, describing IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause and provide clarification. This constitutes an institutional admission, at the faculty and course level, that the accommodation exam score-transmission failure documented in {{HU|HU-168a}} and {{HU|HU-171}} cannot be explained by the instructor and that no faculty-level or program-level investigation is being undertaken. The failure therefore propagates to the IT level without any concurrent academic investigation into whether accommodation exam workflows in Elsevier are correctly configured.

'''Evidence.''' Email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM). Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I am unable to determine why the system behavior occurred. Since a ticket has already been submitted to IT, they are the appropriate team to investigate the cause of the issue and provide further clarification.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including institutional ability to identify and resolve systemic technology failures); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). An instructor's inability to explain why an accommodation exam score was absent from the instructor-facing system for over 51 hours, and the absence of any faculty or program level investigation, leaves the root cause unidentified and the systemic risk to other accommodated students unaddressed. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' Without a faculty or program level inquiry into why accommodation exams may not appear in Evolve, the same failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students in future terms, consistent with the pattern documented by reporter Student CK in {{HU|HU-169}}.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-172b"></span>
=== HU-172b: The Herzing IT Service Desk closed INC0562442 without root-cause investigation: the resolution note by Andrew Cox states only that the professor saw the grade and updated Canvas, which documents the symptom resolution but not the technical cause of why the accommodation exam score failed to appear in the instructor-facing Elsevier (Evolve) view for over 51 hours ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Incident Closed Without Root-Cause Investigation; Resolution Note Documents Symptom Resolution Only
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' Herzing IT Service Desk incident INC0562442 (Urgency 2, Partly Blocked; Short description: Re: Test) was closed by Andrew Cox with a resolution note stating that the professor had responded and noted seeing the grade and updating Canvas. This resolution note documents that the professor updated the Canvas grade, which is the symptom fix, but contains no technical investigation into why the Elsevier (Evolve) accommodation exam score was not visible to the instructor for over 51 hours after exam completion. No root cause is identified, no system-level finding is documented, no fix or configuration change is described, and no mention is made of whether other accommodated students may be affected. The incident was resolved on the basis that the immediate grade harm was corrected, not on the basis that the underlying failure was understood or remediated.

'''Evidence.''' IT Service Desk incident closure notification: INC0562442, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Resolved by Andrew Cox. Dr. Tanetshia Brown email (4:26 PM) referring investigation to IT as the appropriate team to investigate the cause. Source group: email from Dr. Tanetshia Brown to the reporting student (Mon 6/15/2026 4:26 PM); Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>I see your professor responded and noted seeing the grade and updating in Canvas. [IT resolution note, Andrew Cox, INC0562442]</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including functional and reliable technology infrastructure and meaningful incident response); HLC Criterion 2.A (reliable processes for all students). Closing a technology incident because the immediate harm was resolved, without identifying the root cause of a 51-hour score-transmission delay affecting an accommodated student, does not constitute an adequate incident response and leaves the underlying failure available to recur. The pattern of the same failure across at least two students ({{HU|HU-168}}, {{HU|HU-169}}) further indicates a systemic issue that a symptom-only resolution does not address. Lead: {{HU|HU-172}}.

'''Impact.''' With no root-cause investigation, the Elsevier accommodation exam score-transmission failure is likely to recur for the reporting student and for other accommodated students. Future affected students will face the same 51-hour delay, a 0 grade, and the requirement to provide their own proof of completion before the instructor manually corrects the grade.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-172}} (lead). The ticket short description Re: Test suggests it was created from an email thread titled Test or Re: Test, possibly the same email subject line visible in earlier materials. CONFIRMED from IT incident closure screenshot. Documented 2026-06-15.

<span id="HU-173"></span>
=== HU-173: The Herzing IT Service Desk issued updated resolution notes for INC0562442 stating it could not determine whether a system issue occurred because troubleshooting began after the problem had already resolved; IT characterized the reporting student's documented 51-hour Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure as a possible grade matter to be handled with the instructor rather than a confirmed technology failure, and the non-finding leaves the accommodation exam transmission failure officially uninvestigated and unacknowledged at the technical level ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:12em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:12em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| IT Non-Finding on 51-Hour Elsevier Score-Transmission Failure; Troubleshooting Too Late to Observe Failure; System Failure Reframed as Grade Matter
! Date added
| 2026-06-15
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Andrew Cox (IT Service Desk, Herzing) / Herzing IT
|}
'''Finding.''' The updated resolution notes for INC0562442 (Andrew Cox, Urgency 2, Partly Blocked, Short description: Re: Test) provide a more detailed but still non-investigative closure. The IT Service Desk stated that the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time troubleshooting began, so it could not determine whether an issue had existed. This is an explicit institutional admission of two things. First, IT's response was too slow to observe the Elsevier (Evolve) score-transmission failure while it was active. Second, the result is a formal non-finding: IT will not confirm a system failure occurred. The resolution notes further state that working with the instructor on the grade was an appropriate step, characterizing the 51-hour accommodation exam score-transmission failure as a grade-related matter for faculty resolution rather than a technology failure requiring technical investigation. This framing stands in direct contradiction to the documented evidence in {{HU|HU-168}} through {{HU|HU-172}}: an exam completed June 13 (HESI 1,224; Conversion 99.99) whose score was absent from the instructor-facing Evolve view for over 51 hours, requiring student-initiated proof of completion before the grade was corrected. This appears to be a second or revised closure of the same INC0562442, following an earlier closure noted in {{HU|HU-172b}} that stated only that the professor had seen the grade and updated Canvas.

'''Evidence.''' Updated IT Service Desk incident closure notification, INC0562442, Andrew Cox, Jun 15, 2026. Source group: updated Herzing IT Service Desk incident closure notification for INC0562442, resolved by Andrew Cox (Jun 15, 2026); provided by the reporting student. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>the reported issue was no longer occurring by the time we were able to begin troubleshooting, so we cannot determine if there was an issue or not. Working with your instructor regarding your grade related matters in this case was an appropriate step.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including adequate and timely technology incident response and reliable academic records systems); HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable processes for all students, including accommodated students); HLC Criterion 4.B (appropriate and reliable assessment processes). A non-finding based on delayed troubleshooting does not constitute an adequate investigation. The documented evidence (51-hour delay, student-produced HESI report, instructor admission of inability to see the score, corroboration from a second student in {{HU|HU-169}}) establishes that a system failure occurred regardless of IT's ability to observe it in real time. Characterizing a technology failure as a grade matter deflects technical accountability and provides no protection against recurrence.

'''Impact.''' IT's non-finding means no corrective action will be taken to prevent the same accommodation exam score-transmission failure from recurring. Any future accommodated student who takes an exam through the same Elsevier delivery path faces the same risk of a 51-plus-hour score absence and a 0 grade, with the documented institutional response being to work with the instructor.

'''Notes.''' This appears to be a second or revised closure of INC0562442, with more detailed resolution notes than the first closure documented in {{HU|HU-172b}}. Both closures are by Andrew Cox. The hedge word "potentially" in the resolution notes further weakens the acknowledgment of any failure. The statement that IT could not determine whether an issue existed is directly contradicted by Dr. Brown's own admission that she could not see the score in Evolve until after receiving the screenshot ({{HU|HU-172a}}), the 51-hour timeline documented in {{HU|HU-171}}, the HESI results report (Delivery ID 905079) confirming exam completion June 13, and the corroborating pattern in {{HU|HU-169}}. Documented 2026-06-15. Update to {{HU|HU-172b}}; appears to be a second or revised closure following the reporting student's challenge of the first closure. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-172}} (IT closure without root-cause investigation; lead), {{HU|HU-172b}} (first IT closure note, professor-updated-Canvas-only), {{HU|HU-168}} (NSG523 HESI Exam 1 grading disconnect lead), {{HU|HU-168a}} (Elsevier score-transmission disconnect), {{HU|HU-169}} (reporter Student CK; same pattern across two courses), {{HU|HU-171}} (51-hour delay; student-intervention resolution).