Change log

Washington University in St. Louis

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 15, 2026Last changedMay 15, 2026Claims8Sources5Release records0

University page Public JSON Monthly report University index

Washington University in St. Louis currently has 8 source-backed claim records and 5 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 15, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

This page combines all public release diffs for Washington University in St. Louis. 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.

Policy text0Newly extracted0Evidence0Source snapshots0Source text0Source added0Source removed0

11 # Washington University in St. Louis AI policy record
2+privacy: WashU IT guidance says users should not enter Washington University or secure data, including deidentified healthcare data, into publicly accessible non-protected AI tools.
3+Evidence (en-US, 5b8a9f00cc87): The university supports and encourages the responsible and secure exploration of AI tools. When using any publicly accessible, non-protected AI tools, it is vitally important that you do not enter any Washington University or secure data, including deidentified healthcare data of any kind, into these platforms.
4+academic_integrity: WashU student-facing AI guidance tells students to check the instructor and syllabus about whether and how AI tools may be used for classwork, and says that if no explicit policy is outlined, it is better to assume AI use is banned.
5+Evidence (en-US, 6409bee90b9d): In regard to your classwork, please check with your instructor and the syllabus about whether and how you can use ChatGPT and other tools to help you with your classwork. Ask the instructor how AI tools are or are not to be used in the class. There is no set policy across instructors as they are also figuring out how AI fits into the future of their disciplines and how best to teach you the skills needed for future professions. If there is no explicit policy outlined, it is better to assume that AI use is banned.
6+academic_integrity: WashU CTL student guidance says students should not represent AI-tool output as their own work and should cite AI contributions when using AI tools.
7+Evidence (en-US, 6409bee90b9d): Never take the output from AI tools and represent it as your own work. This not only violates the Terms of Use for most AI tools, creating a legal issue, but is also clearly and unarguably plagiarism. To avoid plagiarism when you use AI tools, make sure you cite its contribution accordingly when you use it.
8+procurement: WashU IT AI purchasing guidance says an Office of Information Security Vendor Security Review is required when an AI tool has not yet been approved and the user intends to use or purchase it.
9+Evidence (en-US, 5b8a9f00cc87): If the AI tool has not yet been approved and you intend to use or purchase it, an OIS Vendor Security Review is required. This review evaluates privacy, security, compliance, and AI-specific risks, including how university data is accessed, processed, stored, or used for model training.
10+ai_tool_treatment: WashU identifies specific secure AI tools as reviewed and approved for use with sensitive information, including HIPAA- or FERPA-covered data.
11+Evidence (en-US, 5b8a9f00cc87): Secure AI Tools Approved for HIPAA/FERPA data. Specific tools have been reviewed and approved for use with sensitive information, including data covered by HIPAA or FERPA.
12+teaching: WashU CTL course-policy guidance presents multiple possible GenAI policy categories for instructors, including allowed without restriction, allowed with citations, partially restricted, and completely restricted.
13+Evidence (en-US, 8a98163890c8): There are many possible approaches to policies on the use of GenAI in a course. Your policies can also vary within a course by assignment or assignment type. The sections below describe potential policy types and offer examples of syllabus language for each type. AI Usage Level: Allowed Without Restriction; Allowed With Citations; Restricted Partially; Restricted Completely.
14+security_review: WashU IT's DeepSeek advisory says DeepSeek is not safe for use with university non-public information.
15+Evidence (en-US, 661e2d6dcdf8): We have evaluated DeepSeek, which is an open-source large language model (LLM) and have determined it is not safe for use with university non-public information. Please note: There is a difference between using the public version of DeepSeek and the local instances of the open-source version for research purposes.
16+source_status: The WashU+AI hub tells students that responsible generative-AI use includes reviewing course expectations for authorized use and seeking clarification from instructors before using generative AI tools.
17+Evidence (en-US, 4911c4715a4e): Students: Please ensure the responsible use of generative AI by reviewing your course expectations for the authorized use of generative AI. It is your responsibility to seek clarification from your instructor prior to using these or any other generative AI tools.

Release history

0 public release diffs

Claim changes

8 claim records

privacy

WashU IT guidance says users should not enter Washington University or secure data, including deidentified healthcare data, into publicly accessible non-protected AI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence98%Evidence1Languagesen-US

academic_integrity

WashU student-facing AI guidance tells students to check the instructor and syllabus about whether and how AI tools may be used for classwork, and says that if no explicit policy is outlined, it is better to assume AI use is banned.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%Evidence1Languagesen-US

academic_integrity

WashU CTL student guidance says students should not represent AI-tool output as their own work and should cite AI contributions when using AI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%Evidence1Languagesen-US

procurement

WashU IT AI purchasing guidance says an Office of Information Security Vendor Security Review is required when an AI tool has not yet been approved and the user intends to use or purchase it.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%Evidence1Languagesen-US

ai_tool_treatment

WashU identifies specific secure AI tools as reviewed and approved for use with sensitive information, including HIPAA- or FERPA-covered data.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen-US

teaching

WashU CTL course-policy guidance presents multiple possible GenAI policy categories for instructors, including allowed without restriction, allowed with citations, partially restricted, and completely restricted.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen-US

security_review

WashU IT's DeepSeek advisory says DeepSeek is not safe for use with university non-public information.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen-US

source_status

The WashU+AI hub tells students that responsible generative-AI use includes reviewing course expectations for authorized use and seeking clarification from instructors before using generative AI tools.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen-US