Policy presence
Colorado State University has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Fort Collins, United States
Colorado State University
Colorado State University is listed as QS 2026 rank =458. Colorado State University has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Colorado State University is listed as QS 2026 rank =458. Colorado State University has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Colorado State University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 reviewed claims, from 6 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/colorado-state-university.json. The entity-level confidence is 92%. 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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Claude, Gemini.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution 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
Colorado State University has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Colorado State University has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
Colorado State University has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Colorado State University has 5 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Colorado State University has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Colorado State University has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Colorado State University has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Colorado State University has 3 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Colorado State University has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
Colorado State University has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
8 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
CSU's AI Tools page says other AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Anthropic Claude may be used for non-sensitive public information only.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: commercial_ai_public_information_only
Original evidence
Evidence 1You may use other tools for non-sensitive, public information only. Many commercial AI tools have privacy statements that allow them to collect and store your data, and in many cases, they may use your input to train future models.
Privacy
CSU-GPT is described by CSU as operating inside CSU's Microsoft Azure environment, keeping data, prompts, and uploads inside the university's Microsoft Azure tenant.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: csu_gpt_azure_tenant_data_handling
Original evidence
Evidence 1Unlike public AI tools, CSU-GPT keeps all data, prompts, and uploads inside the university's Microsoft Azure tenant. That means your data never leaves CSU.
Ai Tool Treatment
CSU's AI Tools page lists CSU-GPT, Microsoft Copilot Chat with CSU NetID, and Microsoft Teams Premium as currently approved tools for handling sensitive CSU data.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: approved_sensitive_ai_tools
Original evidence
Evidence 1Only three tools are currently approved for handling sensitive CSU data (such as research data, student information, or protected university records): CSU-GPT; Microsoft Copilot Chat (When logged in with your CSU NetID); Microsoft Teams Premium.
Source Status
The CSU System AI Governance Guidelines state that they apply to individuals handling institutional data or using AI tools in administrative operations, research, clinical, and educational activities across the CSU system.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: system_ai_governance_guidelines_scope
Original evidence
Evidence 1These guidelines apply to all individuals handling institutional data or using AI tools in administrative operations, research, clinical, and educational activities across the CSU system.
Academic Integrity
CSU's Student Resolution Center defines cheating to include unauthorized sources or assistance and instructor-prohibited behavior, and defines plagiarism as representing another's language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts as one's own without proper acknowledgment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: academic_misconduct_cheating_plagiarism_definitions
Original evidence
Evidence 1Cheating includes using unauthorized sources of information and providing or receiving unauthorized assistance on any form of academic work or engaging in any behavior specifically prohibited by the instructor in the course syllabus or class presentation. Plagiarism includes the copying of language, structure, images, ideas, or thoughts of another, and representing them as one's own without proper acknowledgment.
Security Review
For CSU System internal, confidential, and restricted data classifications, the AI Governance Guidelines say users should verify data classification, follow applicable policies, and use CSU-approved tools; restricted data also requires additional approval for AI use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: classified_data_ai_use_requires_approved_tools
Original evidence
Evidence 1Level 2 (Internal): Verify data classification before use, adhere to approved CSU data and AI policies, use only CSU-approved tools... Level 4 (Restricted): Verify data classification before use... use only CSU-approved tools with the highest level of contractual data protection guarantees; requires additional approval for any AI use.
Teaching
CSU TILT guidance says AI syllabus statements should remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work and provide students clarity about instructor expectations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_syllabus_statement_clarity_guidance
Original evidence
Evidence 1However, it is important that they remain consistent with university and department policy on assessing student work. Finally, the most important part of including a statement is that it provides clarity to your students about your expectations.
Academic Integrity
An official CSU MTI teaching page states that work submitted for credit that was created by AI engines can be addressed under multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: mti_ai_created_work_conduct_code_guidance
Original evidence
Evidence 1Is work (essays, responses, code, images) created by an artificial intelligence engine still covered by our Student Conduct Code's language? Yes. Definitively. The Student Conduct Code was written to address behavior, not technologies. In addition, work submitted for credit that was created by AI-engines can be addressed using multiple areas of the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Conduct Code.
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
6 source attribution
Academic Misconduct - Student Resolution Center
resolutioncenter.colostate.edu
AI Governance Guidelines | Data Governance
datagov.csusystem.edu
AI Syllabus Statements & the CSU Conduct Code
natsci.colostate.edu
AI Tools | AI @ CSU | Colorado State University
ai.colostate.edu
CSU-GPT | AI @ CSU | Colorado State University
ai.colostate.edu
What should a syllabus statement on AI look like? | The Institute for Learning and Teaching
tilt.colostate.edu
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.