Change log

Colorado State University

Source-check timeline, source snapshot hashes, claim review state, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed claim evidence.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 16, 2026Last changedMay 16, 2026Claims8Sources6

University page Public JSON

Colorado State University currently has 8 source-backed claim records and 6 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 16, 2026.

This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.

11 # Colorado State University AI policy record
2+privacy: CSU's AI Tools page says other AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Anthropic Claude may be used for non-sensitive public information only.
3+Evidence (en, 5bf38fe76129): You may use other tools for non-sensitive, public information only. Many commercial AI tools have privacy statements that allow them to collect and store your data, and in many cases, they may use your input to train future models.
4+privacy: CSU-GPT is described by CSU as operating inside CSU's Microsoft Azure environment, keeping data, prompts, and uploads inside the university's Microsoft Azure tenant.
5+Evidence (en, ce83f7a22101): Unlike public AI tools, CSU-GPT keeps all data, prompts, and uploads inside the university's Microsoft Azure tenant. That means your data never leaves CSU.
6+ai_tool_treatment: CSU's AI Tools page lists CSU-GPT, Microsoft Copilot Chat with CSU NetID, and Microsoft Teams Premium as currently approved tools for handling sensitive CSU data.
7+Evidence (en, 5bf38fe76129): Only three tools are currently approved for handling sensitive CSU data (such as research data, student information, or protected university records): CSU-GPT; Microsoft Copilot Chat (When logged in with your CSU NetID); Microsoft Teams Premium.
8+source_status: The CSU System AI Governance Guidelines state that they apply to individuals handling institutional data or using AI tools in administrative operations, research, clinical, and educational activities across the CSU system.
9+Evidence (en, 258235e39789): These guidelines apply to all individuals handling institutional data or using AI tools in administrative operations, research, clinical, and educational activities across the CSU system.
10+academic_integrity: CSU's Student Resolution Center defines cheating to include unauthorized sources or assistance and instructor-prohibited behavior, and defines plagiarism as representing another's language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts as one's own without proper acknowledgment.
11+Evidence (en, 5bec05f39bfb): Cheating includes using unauthorized sources of information and providing or receiving unauthorized assistance on any form of academic work or engaging in any behavior specifically prohibited by the instructor in the course syllabus or class presentation. Plagiarism includes the copying of language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts of another, and representing them as one's own without proper acknowledgment.
12+security_review: For CSU System internal, confidential, and restricted data classifications, the AI Governance Guidelines say users should verify data classification, follow applicable policies, and use CSU-approved tools; restricted data also requires additional approval for AI use.
13+Evidence (en, 258235e39789): Level 2 (Internal): Verify data classification before use, adhere to approved CSU data and AI policies, use only CSU-approved tools... Level 4 (Restricted): Verify data classification before use... use only CSU-approved tools with the highest level of contractual data protection guarantees; requires additional approval for any AI use.
14+teaching: CSU TILT guidance says AI syllabus statements should remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work and provide students clarity about instructor expectations.
15+Evidence (en, cbd13f263bb0): However, it is important that they remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work. Finally, the most important part of including a statement is that it provides clarity to your students about your expectations.
16+academic_integrity: An official CSU MTI teaching page states that work submitted for credit that was created by AI engines can be addressed under multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.
17+Evidence (en, 6a81f78351d0): Is work (essays, responses, code, images) created by an artificial intelligence engine still covered by our Student Conduct Code's language? Yes. Definitively. The Student Conduct Code was written to address behavior, not technologies. In addition, work submitted for credit that was created by AI-engines can be addressed using multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.

Claim changes

8 claim records

privacy

CSU's AI Tools page says other AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Anthropic Claude may be used for non-sensitive public information only.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesen

privacy

CSU-GPT is described by CSU as operating inside CSU's Microsoft Azure environment, keeping data, prompts, and uploads inside the university's Microsoft Azure tenant.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

CSU's AI Tools page lists CSU-GPT, Microsoft Copilot Chat with CSU NetID, and Microsoft Teams Premium as currently approved tools for handling sensitive CSU data.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

source_status

The CSU System AI Governance Guidelines state that they apply to individuals handling institutional data or using AI tools in administrative operations, research, clinical, and educational activities across the CSU system.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

CSU's Student Resolution Center defines cheating to include unauthorized sources or assistance and instructor-prohibited behavior, and defines plagiarism as representing another's language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts as one's own without proper acknowledgment.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

security_review

For CSU System internal, confidential, and restricted data classifications, the AI Governance Guidelines say users should verify data classification, follow applicable policies, and use CSU-approved tools; restricted data also requires additional approval for AI use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence89%Evidence1Languagesen

teaching

CSU TILT guidance says AI syllabus statements should remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work and provide students clarity about instructor expectations.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence83%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

An official CSU MTI teaching page states that work submitted for credit that was created by AI engines can be addressed under multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence78%Evidence1Languagesen