University AI Policy Tracker

Otwarte, oparte na dowodach rekordy polityk AI uczelni do publicznego uzycia.

APIGitHub
Jezyk
ENZHFRPL

Change log

University of Liverpool

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 14, 2026Last changedMay 14, 2026Claims7Sources6Release records0
University pagePublic JSONMonthly reportUniversity index

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

University of Liverpool currently has 7 source-backed claim records and 6 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 14, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

This page combines all public release diffs for University of Liverpool. 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 Liverpool combined release diff

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

+14-0
11 # University of Liverpool AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: Liverpool lists unacceptable uses of generative AI in education, including unreviewed copying of AI-generated content into assessment materials or feedback, using AI for grades or final assessment decisions, uploading protected student or confidential information to public AI platforms without required review, and creating or modifying official policy documents without appropriate review and approval.
3+Evidence (en, e5d1080409e9): Unacceptable uses of generative AI in education include copying and pasting AI-generated content directly into assessment briefs, marking rubrics, or feedback without review; using AI to generate grades or make final assessment decisions; uploading student work, personal data, or confidential information to public AI platforms without first completing a Data Protection Impact Assessment.
4+privacy: Liverpool's legal, security, and data-protection guidance says GenAI use must comply with UK GDPR and that personal information should not be uploaded or shared with AI tools unless necessary and appropriate safeguards are in place.
5+Evidence (en, e8d63788f7f7): Any use of generative AI must be compliant with UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). No personal information should be uploaded or shared with any AI tool unless it is necessary, and appropriate safeguarding and protection measures are in place.
6+source_status: The University of Liverpool has a central AI policies and guidance hub that collates generative AI guidance covering golden rules, legal/security/data protection, learning/teaching/assessment, and research.
7+Evidence (en, c498e5be4975): On this page, we have collated our University guidance on generative AI including golden rules, legal, security and data protection, as well as existing guidance on using AI in learning, teaching and assessment, and finally, guidance on generative AI for research.
8+teaching: Liverpool's central GenAI learning, teaching, and assessment page says the University has devised guidance to help academics and students understand its position and make informed decisions on when and how to use GenAI.
9+Evidence (en, e5d1080409e9): The University of Liverpool has devised guidance to help both academics and students understand the University’s position on GenAI in teaching, learning and assessment, and to make informed decisions on when and how to use it.
10+ai_tool_treatment: For University work, Liverpool says staff and students should use Microsoft Copilot as the endorsed generative AI chat tool, provided through the University's Microsoft 365 environment with data governance and safeguards aligned to institutional requirements.
11+Evidence (en, ebc4570e49fd): For University work, staff and students should use Microsoft Copilot – the endorsed generative AI chat tool. Copilot is provided through the University's Microsoft 365 environment, with data governance and safeguards aligned to our institutional requirements.
12+research: Liverpool's research guidance says the University supports responsible and ethical GAI use in research, while expecting researchers and professional services colleagues to apply critical judgement, maintain transparency, prioritize integrity, and remain accountable for research outputs and related materials.
13+Evidence (en, dc99c7a5a316): The University expects all researchers and professional services colleagues to apply critical judgement, maintain transparency, and prioritise integrity at all times. Users remain fully accountable for all research outputs, submissions, analyses, and assessment materials - regardless of whether AI tools were used in their preparation.
14+other: Liverpool's golden rules frame GenAI as a support tool rather than a substitute, and include expectations to acknowledge AI use where required, protect personal and sensitive data, and verify facts.
15+Evidence (en, 30ce6807f5aa): Use AI to support your work, but do not copy-paste outputs into assessed work, research submissions, or official documents without review and attribution. Where required, acknowledge AI use in your work. Include the tool name, version, and date of use for transparency.

Release history

0 public release diffs

Claim changes

7 claim records

academic_integrity

Liverpool lists unacceptable uses of generative AI in education, including unreviewed copying of AI-generated content into assessment materials or feedback, using AI for grades or final assessment decisions, uploading protected student or confidential information to public AI platforms without required review, and creating or modifying official policy documents without appropriate review and approval.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen

privacy

Liverpool's legal, security, and data-protection guidance says GenAI use must comply with UK GDPR and that personal information should not be uploaded or shared with AI tools unless necessary and appropriate safeguards are in place.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesen

source_status

The University of Liverpool has a central AI policies and guidance hub that collates generative AI guidance covering golden rules, legal/security/data protection, learning/teaching/assessment, and research.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

teaching

Liverpool's central GenAI learning, teaching, and assessment page says the University has devised guidance to help academics and students understand its position and make informed decisions on when and how to use GenAI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

For University work, Liverpool says staff and students should use Microsoft Copilot as the endorsed generative AI chat tool, provided through the University's Microsoft 365 environment with data governance and safeguards aligned to institutional requirements.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

research

Liverpool's research guidance says the University supports responsible and ethical GAI use in research, while expecting researchers and professional services colleagues to apply critical judgement, maintain transparency, prioritize integrity, and remain accountable for research outputs and related materials.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

other

Liverpool's golden rules frame GenAI as a support tool rather than a substitute, and include expectations to acknowledge AI use where required, protect personal and sensitive data, and verify facts.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen

Source snapshots

6 source attributions