The first contact decides whether there is a second

An automated warning teaches the student not to engage.

The standard response to a flag is a templated message referring to unsatisfactory progress and possible consequences. It satisfies a procedural requirement and it is close to the worst possible instrument, because a student already anxious about their position receives an institutional letter that confirms their fear and offers nothing.

What works is a person, contacting them directly, without any reference to consequences, asking how things are going. The absence of threat is what makes disclosure possible, and the disclosure is the only thing that leads anywhere useful.

The channel matters more than institutions expect. Email is ignored by students in difficulty, precisely because opening institutional email is what they are avoiding. A phone call or a message on whatever channel the cohort actually uses gets a response rate several times higher.

The script that works is short and specific: we noticed you have not submitted, is everything alright, is there anything going on that we could help with. It takes two minutes and the answer is frequently something the institution can genuinely address.

Where the student does not respond, a second attempt through a different channel is worth making before anything escalates. The non-response is itself information, and treating it as refusal rather than as difficulty closes the door that the contact was meant to open.