University AI Policy Tracker

Registros abiertos y basados en evidencia sobre politicas universitarias de IA.

APIGitHub
Idioma
ENZHFRPL

Change log

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Release-to-release tracker diff history with separate policy-text, newly-extracted claim, evidence, and source snapshot categories.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 25, 2026Last changedMay 26, 2026Claims7Sources4Latest releasepublic-release-20260526-001Release records1
University pagePublic JSONMonthly reportUniversity index

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill currently has 7 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 26, 2026. Latest tracker diff: 0 comparable policy-text changes, 1 newly extracted claims, 0 source snapshot changes.

This page combines all public release diffs for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Individual release snapshots remain available from their release-specific URLs.

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 extracted1Evidence0Source snapshots0Source text0Source added0Source removed0

Combined release diff

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

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill combined release diff

Comparing public-release-20260524-001 to public-release-20260526-001.

+3-0
11 # University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill AI policy diff
22 ## Newly extracted tracker claim
33 This claim was newly extracted or newly promoted in the tracker release. It is not necessarily newly published by the university.
4+teaching: UNC-Chapel Hill says faculty should clearly explain when and how AI tools are used in assessment evaluation, including what comes from AI and what comes from instructor judgment.
5+Evidence (en, 9c6c27e19c1c): Faculty should clearly explain to students when and how AI tools are used in support of assessment evaluation. Students should understand which parts of their evaluation come from AI and which come from the instructor's own judgment.
6+Source Last-Modified: 2026-03-04T19:34:45.000Z

Release history

1 public release diff

public-release-20260526-001

Compared with public-release-20260524-001.

Policy text0Newly extracted1Source snapshots0Source text0
Release diffDiff JSON

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill public-release-20260526-001 diff

Comparing public-release-20260524-001 to public-release-20260526-001.

+3-0
11 # University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill AI policy diff
22 ## Newly extracted tracker claim
33 This claim was newly extracted or newly promoted in the tracker release. It is not necessarily newly published by the university.
4+teaching: UNC-Chapel Hill says faculty should clearly explain when and how AI tools are used in assessment evaluation, including what comes from AI and what comes from instructor judgment.
5+Evidence (en, 9c6c27e19c1c): Faculty should clearly explain to students when and how AI tools are used in support of assessment evaluation. Students should understand which parts of their evaluation come from AI and which come from the instructor's own judgment.
6+Source Last-Modified: 2026-03-04T19:34:45.000Z

Claim changes

7 claim records

teaching

UNC-Chapel Hill says faculty should clearly explain when and how AI tools are used in assessment evaluation, including what comes from AI and what comes from instructor judgment.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

security_review

UNC-Chapel Hill's administrative generative AI guidance says sensitive information should not be entered into generative AI tools unless the Information Security Office has completed a risk assessment and the Data Governance Oversight Group has approved the tool for sensitive information.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen-US

teaching

UNC-Chapel Hill's faculty grading and assessment guidance says students must be able to request a full instructor-led review if they disagree with an AI-generated grade or have concerns about automated feedback.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen-US

privacy

UNC-Chapel Hill's research guidance treats entering private or confidential information, research data, grant proposals, or analytical results into public generative AI tools as a public disclosure of that information.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen-US

teaching

UNC-Chapel Hill's faculty grading and assessment guidance says AI systems used for grading or feedback must be institutionally approved and compliant with data security and privacy standards; faculty using GenAI for grading retain full responsibility for evaluative decisions and feedback.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen-US

research

UNC-Chapel Hill's research generative AI guidance applies to members of the research community involved in research under the auspices of the University, including faculty, staff, students, guest researchers, collaborators, and consultants.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesen-US

teaching

UNC-Chapel Hill faculty guidance encourages instructors to state course and assignment AI expectations in the syllabus and tells Carolina students to follow the specific AI guidelines in that syllabus.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen-US

Source snapshots

4 source attributions

Developing AI Guidance for Faculty - Generative AI at UNC

official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 PM

Snapshot hash
2e373948ed876e8ace7da6bd84ba95c4ca94ef56ed402524e0afa9e226cc7caa