Policy presence
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
London, United Kingdom
UCL
UCL has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 5 reviewed claims. Last checked May 5, 2026.
UCL AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
UCL has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 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 5, 2026. Discovery context: UCL is listed as QS 2026 rank 9.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists UCL as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 5, 2026 and last changed on May 5, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 2 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ucl.json. The entity-level confidence is 95%. 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 AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- 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.
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
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
UCL has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
UCL has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Academic integrity
UCL has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Named AI services
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Teaching guidance
UCL has 1 source-backed public claim 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
UCL uses a 3-category assessment framework for GenAI: Category 1 requires own work only; Category 2 permits GenAI with acknowledgement; Category 3 includes essential GenAI use as part of the assessment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1For Category 1, you might use GenAI tools to help you revise and prepare, but the work you complete for the assessment should be your own. In Category 2, you could use GenAI to get ideas, help draft your work, or even proofread... Category 3 is a lot like category 2, but there will also be some essential use of GenAI.
Ai Tool Treatment
UCL designates Microsoft Copilot as its approved GenAI tool due to its enhanced data protection, positioning it as a more secure alternative to other GenAI services.
Review: Agent reviewed
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1Microsoft Copilot is our approved GenAI tool because of its enhanced data protection. This tool is a more secure and safer alternative to other GenAI services.
Academic Integrity
UCL defines academic misconduct in the context of GenAI as gaining an unfair advantage over other students; there is no single list of fair and unfair uses as it depends on the assessment category.
Review: Agent reviewed
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1Academic integrity is about fairness. If somebody gets an unfair advantage over other students, we consider this academic misconduct. This means that there's no single list of fair and unfair uses of GenAI.
Teaching
UCL provides Studiosity, a GenAI-powered service available 24/7 to all current students at all levels of study, to support academic writing and referencing skills.
Review: Agent reviewed
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1UCL offers a service called Studiosity to support students with their academic writing and referencing skills. The platform uses GenAI and is available 24/7 to all current students, at all levels of study.
Academic Integrity
UCL permits using GenAI to help with spelling, grammar, and language tone in assessments, but it must not change the content and meaning of what the student has written.
Review: Agent reviewed
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1It's okay to use GenAI to help with spelling and grammar, and even with the tone of your language. However, make sure it isn't changing the content and meaning of what you've written. You should always understand the work you submit.
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
2 source attribution
GenAI and academic integrity in assessment | Teaching & Learning — UCL
ucl.ac.uk
Generative AI Hub | Teaching & Learning — UCL
ucl.ac.uk
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.