University AI Policy Tracker

Open, op bewijs gebaseerde AI-beleidsrecords van universiteiten voor publiek hergebruik.

APIGitHub
Taal
ENZHFRPL

Change log

University of Cologne

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 16, 2026Last changedMay 16, 2026Claims5Sources2Release records0
University pagePublic JSONMonthly reportUniversity index

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

University of Cologne currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 2 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 16, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

This page combines all public release diffs for University of Cologne. 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.

Diff categories

Semantic classification for this release diff.

Policy text0Newly extracted0Evidence0Source snapshots0Source text0Source added0Source removed0

Combined release diff

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

University of Cologne combined release diff

Initial tracked release. Lines represent public claim/evidence records entering the release snapshot.

+10-0
11 # University of Cologne AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: The University of Cologne Justitiariat says an exam or significant parts of an exam fully generated by AI are not an independent performance and are prohibited as deception.
3+Evidence (de, d71f4939026b): Werden die gesamte Prüfung oder bedeutende Teile davon vollständig mittels KI generiert, handelt es sich nicht um eine selbstständige Leistung ... und ist somit verboten. Es liegt eine Täuschung vor.
4+academic_integrity: The University of Cologne Justitiariat says current AI text detector software is not sufficient evidence of deception by itself; additional circumstances are needed to prove a deception act.
5+Evidence (de, d71f4939026b): Aktuell gibt es jedoch keine verlässliche Methode KI-generierte Texte nachzuweisen. ... Diese stellen aber keinen ausreichenden Beleg für eine Täuschungshandlung dar. Für den Nachweis einer Täuschungshandlung müssen daher weitere Umstände hinzukommen.
6+ai_tool_treatment: The University of Cologne Justitiariat says AI use in examinations is not objectionable under examination law when the student still produces their own independent work.
7+Evidence (de, d71f4939026b): Wird KI hingegen so genutzt, dass noch eine eigene Leistung erbracht wird, spricht prüfungsrechtlich nichts gegen eine Nutzung von KI in Prüfungen.
8+academic_integrity: For term papers, theses, take-home exams, papers, and similar work, the University of Cologne Justitiariat says AI use is generally possible if independent work remains, and examiners may require disclosure of both the AI use and the related prompts depending on the use.
9+Evidence (de, d71f4939026b): In Haus- und Abschlussarbeiten ist die Nutzung ... grundsätzlich möglich, solange noch eine eigenständige Leistung erbracht wird. ... Je nach Einsatz der KI kann durch die Prüfenden verlangt werden, dass nicht nur die Verwendung, sondern auch die zugehörigen Abfragebefehle (Prompts) offengelegt werden.
10+teaching: On its central teaching page, the University of Cologne says its current teaching-and-learning guidelines for generative AI are to address and explore AI-supported writing proactively and to use AI systems with maximum transparency.
11+Evidence (de, fabf1c063d26): Mit Blick auf die Rolle von generativer KI im Kontext von Lehren und Lernen folgen wir aktuell zwei Leitlinien: 1. KI-gestütztes Schreiben ... sollte proaktiv platziert, verhandelt und exploriert werden 2. Der Einsatz von KI-Systemen muss mit maximaler Transparenz erfolgen

Release history

0 public release diffs

Claim changes

5 claim records

teaching

On its central teaching page, the University of Cologne says its current teaching-and-learning guidelines for generative AI are to address and explore AI-supported writing proactively and to use AI systems with maximum transparency.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence88%Evidence1Languagesde

academic_integrity

The University of Cologne Justitiariat says current AI text detector software is not sufficient evidence of deception by itself; additional circumstances are needed to prove a deception act.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesde

academic_integrity

For term papers, theses, take-home exams, papers, and similar work, the University of Cologne Justitiariat says AI use is generally possible if independent work remains, and examiners may require disclosure of both the AI use and the related prompts depending on the use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

ai_tool_treatment

The University of Cologne Justitiariat says AI use in examinations is not objectionable under examination law when the student still produces their own independent work.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

academic_integrity

The University of Cologne Justitiariat says an exam or significant parts of an exam fully generated by AI are not an independent performance and are prohibited as deception.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesde

Source snapshots

2 source attributions