Policy presence
Simon Fraser University has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Burnaby, Canada
Simon Fraser University
Simon Fraser University has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 5 reviewed claims. Last checked May 16, 2026.
Simon Fraser University AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
Simon Fraser University has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions, including 5 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 16, 2026. Discovery context: Simon Fraser University is listed as QS 2026 rank =308.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Simon Fraser University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 4 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/simon-fraser-university.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
- Privacy, sensitive-data, or security language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page 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.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
Simon Fraser University has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Simon Fraser University has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
Simon Fraser University has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Simon Fraser University has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Simon Fraser University has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
No source-backed public claim identifying approved or licensed AI tools is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence that identifies institutionally approved, licensed, procured, or enterprise AI tools.
Named AI services
Simon Fraser University has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Simon Fraser University has 4 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.
Security and procurement
No source-backed public claim about AI security review or procurement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about security review, procurement, vendor approval, risk assessment, authentication, SSO, or enterprise licensing.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
5 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
SFU guidance says AI detectors cannot be used for grading decisions or academic misconduct investigations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI detectors are not permitted as grading or misconduct-investigation decision tools under the cited guidance.
Evidencia original
Evidence 1Do not rely on AI detectors, as these tools can be unreliable, biased and may unintentionally comprise your learning and well-being. AI detectors cannot be used for grading decisions or academic misconduct investigations.
Academic Integrity
SFU tells students that use of generative AI for coursework depends on instructor permission, and students should not assume it is permitted when guidance is unclear or absent.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Students must follow instructor AI-use guidance and ask before using AI when expectations are unclear.
Evidencia original
Evidence 1The only way to know if you are permitted to use generative AI for your course assignments is by checking with your course instructor, who will likely communicate this in the course syllabus. If you are unsure, you must not assume that using generative AI is permitted.
Privacy
SFU guidance for faculty and staff says personal or confidential information should not be entered into AI tools that have not completed an SFU Privacy Impact Assessment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Faculty and staff AI use is constrained by SFU PIA status for personal or confidential information.
Evidencia original
Evidence 1users need to ensure that they never input personal or confidential information into AI tools that have not undergone a SFU Privacy Impact Assessment.
Academic Integrity
When an SFU instructor permits generative AI use, SFU tells students to cite or disclose that use appropriately as part of academic integrity.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Permitted GenAI use still requires appropriate citation or transparent disclosure.
Evidencia original
Evidence 1Even if your instructor permits the use of GenAI, you must not do so without appropriate citation. This is because you must be transparent about the aids you use as part of commitment to academic integrity.
Teaching
SFU instructor guidance says instructors should clearly communicate AI-use expectations in assignments, the classroom, and the syllabus.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Instructor guidance emphasizes explicit communication of AI-use expectations.
Evidencia original
Evidence 1Clearly communicate your expectations regarding AI use in each assignment and in the classroom to your students in the syllabus, during first day of class, and at intervals throughout the semester.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
4 source attribution
Learn with AI
sfu.ca
Teach with AI
sfu.ca
Using generative AI
sfu.ca
Work with AI
sfu.ca
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.