Add me to the list of people who see nothing wrong with this. If he didn't encourage or incentivise his students to cheat in any way (and in fact actively warne

Add me to the list of people who see nothing wrong with this. If he didn't encourage or incentivise his students to cheat in any way (and in fact actively warned them against it) then the idea that this was some sort of entrapment is laughable. The only room for ambiguity I can see is the arbitrary 1% threshold. If there was a student just over the line then it's plausible that they were honest but unlucky here. Given the consequences of being tagged as a cheater both for this exam and beyond I would want much lower odds of a false positive and I'd certainly feel obliged to give a borderline case the benefit of the doubt. But if it was clearly understood that this kind of behaviour constituted cheating and innocence is a billion to one shot? Throw the book at them. Anything less is unfair to every student who didn't cheat.