academic_integrity
For Common Awards summative assessments, Durham guidance says students must not use generative AI to create substantive content that they present as their own creation.
Review: Agent reviewed
Change log
Durham University
Release-to-release tracker diff with separate policy-text, newly-extracted claim, evidence, and source snapshot categories.
Change summary
Current public record freshness and review state.
Durham University currently has 11 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 14, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.
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.
Release diff
Unified tracker diff generated from the previous and current public release snapshots.
No tracker claim/evidence/source changes are recorded for this university in the latest public release.
Claim changes
11 claim records
source_status
Durham Common Awards AI academic-misconduct policy is scoped to students' use of generative AI in summative assessments on Common Awards modules.
Review: Agent reviewed
academic_integrity
For Common Awards students, Durham guidance says students must not provide generative AI with others' material unless it is public-domain material, permitted material, or protected from training use.
Review: Agent reviewed
academic_integrity
The Durham Common Awards page says its AI policy requires students to paste a completed AI declaration into summative assignments before submission.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Global Opportunities guidance says using generative AI in Global Opportunities applications is unadvisable and may negatively affect an application.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Common Awards guidance says some limited uses of generative AI do not count as academic misconduct if work remains the student's own, AI use is acknowledged where required, and caution is demonstrated.
Review: Agent reviewed
ai_tool_treatment
Durham Global Opportunities guidance says asking an AI tool to proofread in British English would be appropriate where the original text was generated by the human applicant.
Review: Agent reviewed
source_status
Durham's public DCAD generative-AI resources page lists an internal Institutional Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Learning, Teaching and Assessment dated June 2025.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says marking criteria should be reviewed alongside assessment redesign in light of generative AI.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says actively addressing generative AI in assessment briefs can promote open dialogue with students and help assessments reflect programme learning outcomes and disciplinary practices.
Review: Agent reviewed
teaching
DCAD assessment guidance says starting an iterative programme-level discussion about learning outcomes and generative AI is highly recommended rather than ignoring already occurring shifts.
Review: Agent reviewed
Source snapshots
4 source attributions
Academic Misconduct: AI Policy and Guidance
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
AI Guidance
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
Assessment and marking in light of generative AI
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM
Generative AI in Learning, Teaching & Assessment
official_guidance Tracker checked at May 14, 2026, 2:12 AM