Change log

The University of Warwick

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

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 12, 2026Last changedMay 12, 2026Claims10Sources5

University page Public JSON

The University of Warwick currently has 10 source-backed claim records and 5 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 12, 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 # The University of Warwick AI policy record
2+procurement: Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says all new uses of AI tools, products, or services must go through appropriate procurement processes, regardless of cost.
3+Evidence (en, b3469285b32f): Regardless of costs, all new uses of AI tools and services/products or services, must go through appropriate procurement processes.
4+academic_integrity: Warwick's student-facing guidance says students are required to state whether AI was used in the submission process and explain why, where, and how it was used.
5+Evidence (en, f80891d64ee9): You will be required to state if any AI has been used as part of the submission procedure. If you use an AI, you must set out why, where and how you have done so.
6+security_review: Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy covers everyone with a contractual or implied relationship with the University and all information processed by the University.
7+Evidence (en, b3469285b32f): The policy covers everyone who has a contractual (formal or informal/implied) relationship with the University, including employees, students, visiting academics, and consultants. The policy covers all information processed by the University, regardless of ownership or format.
8+privacy: Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says certain data, including personal or confidential material, University intellectual property, and some copyrighted or third-party data, must not be put into AI software without prior approval.
9+Evidence (en, b3469285b32f): Certain types of data must never be put into any AI software, without prior approval from IDG or the Research Ethics Committee. These include: Passwords and usernames. Personally identifiable information (PII) or other sensitive or confidential material. Any data related to University Intellectual Property.
10+academic_integrity: Warwick's student-facing guidance says students may use AI only within requirements set out in assessment briefs and course handbooks, which may restrict or prohibit AI use.
11+Evidence (en, f80891d64ee9): The general position is that you can use Artificial Intelligence (AI) but must follow any requirements set out in assessments and course handbooks. Those requirements may restrict or prohibit the use of AI.
12+research: Warwick's AI in research guidance says its principles apply to all researchers and researchers must consider AI-related research risks including integrity, information security, and accountability risks.
13+Evidence (en, 1a449b904c0f): The principles set out in this guidance apply to all researchers as previously defined. Researchers must consider all risks that may be relevant to their research that arise from AI.
14+privacy: Warwick's student-facing guidance tells students not to enter personal or confidential data into AI tools unless they understand what will happen to the data, and recommends Copilot chat with a Warwick account for that kind of data.
15+Evidence (en, f80891d64ee9): Do not input any personal or confidential data into any AI tools, unless you fully understand what will happen to that data. The university recommends using Co-Pilot chat for this kind of data - when logged in with your Warwick account.
16+research: Warwick's AI in research guidance says researchers are responsible for misconduct-type practices involving AI, including improper handling of information or use of another person's ideas, even if such practices occur inadvertently through an AI tool.
17+Evidence (en, 1a449b904c0f): Misconduct in research includes: the fabrication or falsification of research data; improper handling of information on individuals collected during research; or the use of another person's ideas, work or research data without appropriate acknowledgement. Researchers are responsible for any such practices, even if they occur inadvertently through the use of an AI tool.
18+teaching: Warwick's assessment-design guidance says generative AI use in student submissions needs thoughtful support so responsible use and clear demonstration of human achievement are maintained.
19+Evidence (en, c8778870c27e): use of generative AI technologies to produce text and other media as part of student submissions ... needs to be thoughtfully supported to ensure responsible use and clear demonstration of human achievements.
20+ai_tool_treatment: Warwick's responsible-use guidance frames responsible AI use as honest, ethical, transparent, human-accountable, safe, secure, and attentive to bias, fairness, inclusivity, and accessibility.
21+Evidence (en, 4356f58aa141): Responsible use includes ... using AI with honesty, in ethical and defensible ways, with human responsibility taken for the outcomes; being transparent about AI use; making concerted efforts to maximise safe and secure use; using AI in ways that mitigate bias and promote fairness, inclusivity and accessibility.

Claim changes

10 claim records

privacy

Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says certain data, including personal or confidential material, University intellectual property, and some copyrighted or third-party data, must not be put into AI software without prior approval.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen

procurement

Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says all new uses of AI tools, products, or services must go through appropriate procurement processes, regardless of cost.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen

security_review

Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy covers everyone with a contractual or implied relationship with the University and all information processed by the University.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

Warwick's responsible-use guidance frames responsible AI use as honest, ethical, transparent, human-accountable, safe, secure, and attentive to bias, fairness, inclusivity, and accessibility.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesen

research

Warwick's AI in research guidance says researchers are responsible for misconduct-type practices involving AI, including improper handling of information or use of another person's ideas, even if such practices occur inadvertently through an AI tool.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen

research

Warwick's AI in research guidance says its principles apply to all researchers and researchers must consider AI-related research risks including integrity, information security, and accountability risks.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

teaching

Warwick's assessment-design guidance says generative AI use in student submissions needs thoughtful support so responsible use and clear demonstration of human achievement are maintained.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesen

privacy

Warwick's student-facing guidance tells students not to enter personal or confidential data into AI tools unless they understand what will happen to the data, and recommends Copilot chat with a Warwick account for that kind of data.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

Warwick's student-facing guidance says students are required to state whether AI was used in the submission process and explain why, where, and how it was used.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

Warwick's student-facing guidance says students may use AI only within requirements set out in assessment briefs and course handbooks, which may restrict or prohibit AI use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen