Procedural justice and writing‐process transparency in <scp>GenAI</scp> ‐affected writing curriculum: A classroom‐based study of course review governance

Abstract Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) challenges writing curricula because final texts alone no longer show how student work was produced, revised and justified. This exploratory classroom‐based study examined whether course‐level procedures for handling GenAI‐related writing concerns were associated with students' writing‐process transparency. In an elective academic writing course at a university in China, four intact classes were allocated within instructor strata to procedural governance, emphasising explanation, student response and correctability or techno‐deterrence governance, centred on detector‐threshold warning and routine follow‐up. Students submitted a minimum evidence package comprising outlines, drafts, revision traces and literature‐search records. Procedural governance was associated with higher end‐of‐term writing‐process transparency than techno‐deterrence governance (Hedges' g = 0.48), with the clearest difference in revision traces ( g = 0.50). It was also associated with higher perceived procedural justice ( g = 0.59) and lower false‐accusation anxiety ( g = −0.41). The findings suggest that process transparency is governance‐sensitive: it depends not only on what evidence students are asked to submit, but also on how that evidence is reviewed.