Policy presence
Eindhoven University of Technology has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Eindhoven University of Technology
Eindhoven University of Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank =140. Eindhoven University of Technology has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Eindhoven University of Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank =140. Eindhoven University of Technology has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 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 Eindhoven University of Technology as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 2026. The record contains 10 source-backed claims, including 10 reviewed claims, from 4 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/eindhoven-university-of-technology.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. 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 Research claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Procurement claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot.
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
No source-backed public claim about AI disclosure or acknowledgement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about disclosing, acknowledging, citing, or declaring AI use.
Coursework
Eindhoven University of Technology has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Exams
Eindhoven University of Technology has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Eindhoven University of Technology has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Eindhoven University of Technology has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Approved tools
Eindhoven University of Technology has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Eindhoven University of Technology has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Eindhoven University of Technology has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Eindhoven University of Technology has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
Eindhoven University of Technology has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
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
10 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
TU/e classifies AI-tool use as fraud if submitted work is no longer sufficiently the student's own or if the student has not included a correct statement about the AI use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_use_fraud_if_work_not_own_or_statement_missing
Original evidence
Evidence 1Using AI tools counts as fraud if... The submitted work is no longer sufficiently the student's own... [or] The student has not included a correct statement about the AI use.
Ai Tool Treatment
TU/e allows AI tools as aids for general study and teaching functionalities unless an examiner explicitly forbids them, while keeping students and staff responsible for submitted work and educational activities.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: general_ai_tool_use_allowed_unless_examiner_forbids
Original evidence
Evidence 1The use of AI tools is allowed as an aid for general functionalities... unless explicitly forbidden by the examiner... Staff is always responsible... Students are always responsible for the work they submit.
Academic Integrity
TU/e requires a complete statement when GenAI is used in a way that partially replaces or outsources the student's own work and learning process.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_use_beyond_general_functions_requires_statement
Original evidence
Evidence 1When using GenAI functionalities... complete statements about the use are required... when GenAI partially replaces or outsources the student's own work and learning process.
Research
TU/e states that generating quantitative or qualitative research data with GenAI is fundamentally prohibited unless the examiner gives explicit consent.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_research_data_generation_prohibited_without_examiner_consent
Original evidence
Evidence 1The generation of quantitative and qualitative research data with GenAI is fundamentally prohibited, unless explicit consent is given by the examiner.
Teaching
TU/e does not permit automated decision-making or grading based on a GenAI model without human oversight over the assessment process.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_grading_requires_human_oversight
Original evidence
Evidence 1Teachers are encouraged to use tools in teaching and assessment... However, automated decision-making/grading based on a GenAI model without human oversight over the assessment process is not permitted.
Privacy
TU/e warns AI users not to enter sensitive information or data and to follow the GDPR because AI tools carry privacy, security, storage, copyright, NDA, intellectual property, and data-processing risks.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: do_not_enter_sensitive_data_follow_gdpr
Original evidence
Evidence 1The use of tools also comes with risks... data processing... privacy, security, and storage of personal, corporate, and research data. Therefore, do not enter sensitive information or data. Follow the GDPR.
Source Status
TU/e's public Education Guide identifies the AI Rules_TUe.pdf as outlining the key policies for AI use in students' studies.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: central_public_ai_rules_linked_from_education_guide
Original evidence
Evidence 1TU/e aims to equip students with the skills and knowledge to use GenAI tools competently and responsibly... TU/e Most Urgent Rules for AI Use in Education outlines the key policies regarding AI in your studies.
Procurement
TU/e's public Canvas AI-in-education guidance says students cannot be required to use ChatGPT because TU/e has no processor agreement or contract for ChatGPT, and points to Microsoft Copilot as a protected alternative available with a TU/e account.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: chatgpt_not_required_copilot_protected_alternative
Original evidence
Evidence 1TU/e has no processor agreement or contract for use of ChatGPT. So, students cannot be required to use it. We do offer an alternative for ChatGPT, named Microsoft Copilot.
Academic Integrity
For TU/e Industrial Design, a reference list showing typical generative-AI faulty-reference patterns is treated as a Category 2 infringement, with repeat offences treated as Category 3.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: industrial_design_genai_faulty_references_category_2_repeat_category_3
Original evidence
Evidence 1The presence of a reference list with the typical patterns of generative AI will be considered a Category 2 infringement. A repeat offence will be considered a Category 3 infringement.
Academic Integrity
For TU/e Industrial Design students, the department-level Academic Fraud page says AI tools should not be used unless the current semester project Canvas guidelines are followed.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: industrial_design_ai_tools_follow_canvas_guidelines
Original evidence
Evidence 1The department of Industrial Design's position is that these tools should not be used unless the guidelines are followed... the latest version of the guidelines can be found in your current semester's project Canvas page.
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
4 source attribution
Academic Fraud
studiegids.tue.nl
Artificial intelligence in Education: Online Learning & Education
canvas.tue.nl
Testing and assessment
educationguide.tue.nl
TU/e Basic Rules for AI Use in Education
assets.w3.tue.nl
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.