Prototype evaluation of Inner Compass shows promise for improving student retention with early intervention analytics.
Undergraduate attrition remains a persistent challenge for U.S. higher education: roughly one in four entering students does not persist into a second year of study, and advising staff typically carry caseloads far too large for consistent early intervention. This paper presents the design rationale and prototype evaluation of Inner Compass, a student-success analytics platform built around two constraints that are usually treated as afterthoughts: (1) an advisor-in-the-loop operating model, in which the system never contacts students and never automates an academic decision, and (2) a FERPA-first data architecture that operates on data institutions already collect and routes every output to a named professional. The minimum-viable prototype ingests learning-management-system (LMS) activity and student-information-system (SIS) records, and produces three advisor-facing outputs: an engagement-pattern profile, a calibrated non-retention risk flag with per-student drivers, and a program pathway-fit signal. On a held-out split of a synthetic labelled cohort (n = 188), the calibrated risk classifier attains 67.6% accuracy and ROC-AUC of 0.72, with an operating point deliberately tuned toward recall on the at-risk class (76.2% at-risk recall). We map each architectural commitment to the trustworthiness characteristics of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, describe a staged data-governance protocol for deployment, and specify a pilot design for a single academic program. All reported metrics are produced by the prototype on synthetic demonstration data and are intended to demonstrate end-to-end system function, not outcomes at any institution. We argue that this advisor-mediated, compliance-first configuration is the design position most consistent with current federal guidance on AI in education, and with how advising offices actually operate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gulnara Kenesbayeva (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: