University AI Policy Tracker
APIGitHub
Language
ENZHFRPL

Change log

Kingston University, London

Source-backed change history with no release-to-release policy diff rows recorded yet; current claims, official sources, review state, and freshness remain visible across 0 public release records.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 18, 2026Last changedMay 18, 2026Claims5Sources3Release records0
University pagePublic JSONMonthly reportUniversity index

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

Kingston University, London currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 3 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 18, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

This page combines all public release diffs for Kingston University, London. Individual release snapshots remain available from their release-specific URLs.

No release-to-release policy diff rows are recorded for this university yet. The page still tracks current source-backed claims, official source attributions, review state, source freshness, and public JSON for discovery and citation.

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.

Newly extracted claims are tracker additions and are not necessarily newly published by the university. Source snapshot changes show hash changes for the same source URL and are not by themselves policy changes.

Diff categories

Semantic classification for this release diff.

Policy text0Newly extracted0Evidence0Source snapshots0Source text0Source added0Source removed0

Combined release diff

Unified tracker diff generated from all public release snapshots for this university.

Kingston University, London combined release diff

Initial tracked release. Lines represent public claim/evidence records entering the release snapshot.

+10-0
11 # Kingston University, London AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: Kingston University's 2025/26 Academic Integrity procedure defines unacceptable use of generative AI as presenting AI-generated content as one's own without proper acknowledgement, except when the assessment brief explicitly permits it.
3+Evidence (en-GB, a65ad969e826): The University defines the unacceptable use of Generative Artificial Intelligence as the act of presenting content generated by artificial intelligence tools (such as text, media, tables etc - list not exhaustive), as one's own without proper acknowledgement, except where the nature of the assessment makes this permissible and is explicitly stated in the assessment brief.
4+academic_integrity: Kingston University's AG2 guidance says that if generative AI is used as part of the editorial process, the student must acknowledge that use.
5+Evidence (en-GB, c103d6c1350a): Where a Generative AI has been used as part of the editorial process, then this must be acknowledged by the student.
6+academic_integrity: Kingston University's 2025/26 Academic Integrity procedure says contributions by artificial intelligence tools must be properly acknowledged.
7+Evidence (en-GB, a65ad969e826): Contributions by artificial intelligence (AI) tools must also be properly acknowledged.
8+ai_tool_treatment: Kingston University's AG2 editorial-help guidance covers software tools including generative AI when students use third-party help in draft or final assessment work.
9+Evidence (en-GB, c103d6c1350a): This guidance is for use when a student is considering whether to employ a third party such as a professional copy editing or proof-reading company or software tool (including generative artificial intelligence (GAI)) when producing work in draft or final version.
10+source_status: Kingston University's 2025/26 regulation-change summary states that AR6 and AR7 introduced a formal definition of generative AI use within types of academic misconduct, and that AG2 became standalone guidance referencing AI and non-AI editorial help.
11+Evidence (en-GB, 4fbe3423fc7b): Introduction of a formal definition of use of generative artificial intelligence articulated within our current different types for academic misconduct. This guidance was previously published as an Annex within the Academic Integrity Procedures for Taught and Research degrees (AR6 and AR7) but has been reviewed as a new standalone document which references both AI and non-AI editorial help.

Release history

0 public release diffs

Claim changes

5 claim records

academic_integrity

Kingston University's 2025/26 Academic Integrity procedure defines unacceptable use of generative AI as presenting AI-generated content as one's own without proper acknowledgement, except when the assessment brief explicitly permits it.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%Evidence1Languagesen-GB

academic_integrity

Kingston University's AG2 guidance says that if generative AI is used as part of the editorial process, the student must acknowledge that use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen-GB

academic_integrity

Kingston University's 2025/26 Academic Integrity procedure says contributions by artificial intelligence tools must be properly acknowledged.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen-GB

ai_tool_treatment

Kingston University's AG2 editorial-help guidance covers software tools including generative AI when students use third-party help in draft or final assessment work.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesen-GB

source_status

Kingston University's 2025/26 regulation-change summary states that AR6 and AR7 introduced a formal definition of generative AI use within types of academic misconduct, and that AG2 became standalone guidance referencing AI and non-AI editorial help.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen-GB

Source snapshots

3 source attributions