user2569: Does FIDE (or any national federations) have any set protocols regarding detection of cheating? Or maybe a formal process for adjudicating suspicion? From what I can tell, the arbiter at St. Louis installed some screening and was in touch with Ken Regan, who has considerable experience in the field, but is that sort of thing standard? Because otherwise, I am seeing just a lot of opinion, i.e. GMs saying moves look "weird" and "not human" but such claims can be misleading and are hardly conclusive.
From what I can tell, screening measures on-site and detection re Regan's methods are hardly foolproof.
It seems like there should be a formal way to deal with suspicion that isn't "either have ironclad proof or shut up" but maybe I'm being naive?

user17004: The FIDE Handbook compiles all the FIDE regulations. There is a section about this topic: https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/AntiCheatingRegulations
This looks like the same link that is in the comments... But, it is not!
However, the guideline in FIDE has been to allow the tournament director to use his/her good judgement. Not everything can be written.
Also, not all the tournaments are equal. There are tournaments with a big budget, and others with "zero" budget. If your budget is limited, it would be impossible to use some protocols.
In my perspective, without a clear evidence that a player is cheating, it is almost impossible that a tournament director changes a result.

2569: <p>Does FIDE (or any national federations) have any set protocols regarding detection of cheating? Or maybe a formal process for adjudicating suspicion? From what I can tell, the arbiter at St. Louis installed some screening and was in touch with Ken Regan, who has considerable experience in the field, but is that sort of thing standard? Because otherwise, I am seeing just a lot of opinion, i.e. GMs saying moves look &quot;weird&quot; and &quot;not human&quot; but such claims can be misleading and are hardly conclusive.</p>
<p>From what I can tell, screening measures on-site and detection re Regan's methods are hardly foolproof.</p>
<p>It seems like there should be a formal way to deal with suspicion that isn't &quot;either have ironclad proof or shut up&quot; but maybe I'm being naive?</p>
 17004: <p>The FIDE Handbook compiles all the FIDE regulations. There is a section about this topic: <a href="https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/AntiCheatingRegulations" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/AntiCheatingRegulations</a>
This looks like the same link that is in the comments... But, it is not!</p>
<p>However, the guideline in FIDE has been to allow the tournament director to use his/her good judgement. Not everything can be written.</p>
<p>Also, not all the tournaments are equal. There are tournaments with a big budget, and others with &quot;zero&quot; budget. If your budget is limited, it would be impossible to use some protocols.</p>
<p>In my perspective, without a clear evidence that a player is cheating, it is almost impossible that a tournament director changes a result.</p>
