Policy presence
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
London, United Kingdom
Royal Holloway, University of London
Royal Holloway, University of London is listed as QS 2026 rank =461. Royal Holloway, University of London has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Royal Holloway, University of London is listed as QS 2026 rank =461. Royal Holloway, University of London has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 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 Royal Holloway, University of London as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 7 source-backed claims, including 7 reviewed claims, from 8 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/royal-holloway-university-of-london.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 Research claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Source status 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
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
Royal Holloway, University of London has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Royal Holloway, University of London has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Royal Holloway, University of London has 4 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Royal Holloway, University of London has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Royal Holloway, University of London has 3 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
7 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
Royal Holloway academic misconduct regulations list requesting or engaging an artificial intelligence tool to write or rewrite work for unfair advantage, and presenting AI-generated content as one’s own unless authorised and acknowledged, as examples of assessment offences.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_commissioning_and_unauthorised_ai_in_regulations
Original evidence
Evidence 1Commissioning, which is requesting or engaging another person or artificial intelligence tool whether paid or unpaid to write or rewrite work in order to obtain an unfair advantage for oneself. Presenting content generated by artificial intelligence tools as your own unless specifically authorised in writing as part of the assessment brief and appropriately acknowledged.
Localized display only
Commissioning, which is requesting or engaging another person or artificial intelligence tool whether paid or unpaid to write or rewrite work in order to obtain an unfair advantage for oneself. Presenting content generated by artificial intelligence tools as your own unless specifically authorised in writing as part of the assessment brief and appropriately acknowledged.
Research
Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance for postgraduate researchers says AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose, or other academic content, and that researchers are responsible for every output they submit.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: pgr_ai_may_not_author_research_claims_or_thesis_prose
Original evidence
Evidence 1Originality: AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose or other academic content. Transparency: declare that any AI use is within the permitted guidance outlined in this document. Accountability: you, the student, are responsible for every output that you submit.
Localized display only
Originality: AI may not author or generate research claims, thesis prose or other academic content. Transparency: declare that any AI use is within the permitted guidance outlined in this document. Accountability: you, the student, are responsible for every output that you submit.
Academic Integrity
Royal Holloway requires students to include declaration statements for generative AI use or non-use, and says a list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_declaration_and_prompt_list_required
Original evidence
Evidence 1Explicit acknowledgment of use of generative AI tools such as Large Language Models like Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or ChatGPT or any other media generated through similar tools is required. If you have not used any such tools in any way a declaration statement is still required. Prompt List: A list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.
Localized display only
Explicit acknowledgment of use of generative AI tools such as Large Language Models like Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini or ChatGPT or any other media generated through similar tools is required. If you have not used any such tools in any way a declaration statement is still required. Prompt List: A list of all prompts entered into any large language model must be provided.
Privacy
Royal Holloway Doctoral School guidance says postgraduate researchers should not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party AI tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: pgr_no_confidential_personal_sensitive_data_to_third_party_ai_without_dpa_consent
Original evidence
Evidence 1Data protection: do not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required. Uploading Personal, Special-category, or Confidential Data to Public AI Services: Any content that could identify individuals, organisations, or sensitive locations. No.
Localized display only
Data protection: do not expose confidential, personal, or sensitive data to third-party tools unless there is an approved data processing agreement and explicit consent where required. Uploading Personal, Special-category, or Confidential Data to Public AI Services: Any content that could identify individuals, organisations, or sensitive locations. No.
Ai Tool Treatment
Royal Holloway tells Foundation, undergraduate, and postgraduate taught students that module assessment briefs take precedence for AI use; if a brief says AI is not permitted, students must not use it and must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: assessment_brief_precedence
Original evidence
Evidence 1This guidance provides a broad overview, but all students must follow specific instructions in module assessment briefs as local guidance always takes precedence. If the brief says AI is not permitted, you must not use it. You must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.
Localized display only
This guidance provides a broad overview, but all students must follow specific instructions in module assessment briefs as local guidance always takes precedence. If the brief says AI is not permitted, you must not use it. You must declare any AI use clearly and honestly.
Ai Tool Treatment
Royal Holloway recommends Microsoft Copilot for generative AI use when students log in with Royal Holloway account details, and warns students to be extremely careful when entering data into other generative AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: microsoft_copilot_recommended_with_rhul_login
Original evidence
Evidence 1From the many generative AI tools, Royal Holloway recommends that you use Microsoft Copilot, logging in with your Royal Holloway account details. Please be extremely careful when entering data into a generative AI tool: this is particularly important if you are using one other than MS Copilot and your RHUL login.
Localized display only
From the many generative AI tools, Royal Holloway recommends that you use Microsoft Copilot, logging in with your Royal Holloway account details. Please be extremely careful when entering data into a generative AI tool: this is particularly important if you are using one other than MS Copilot and your RHUL login.
Source Status
The official AI guidance verified in this crawl is scoped to Foundation, undergraduate, postgraduate taught students, and postgraduate researchers; this crawl did not verify a separate staff-wide binding AI teaching policy.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: verified_sources_student_and_pgr_scoped_no_staffwide_policy_found
Original evidence
Evidence 1Guidance for our Foundation, Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Students. This guidance outlines how students at the University may and may not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in their academic work.
Localized display only
Guidance for our Foundation, Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Students. This guidance outlines how students at the University may and may not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in their academic work.
Original evidence
Evidence 2This guidance sets out expectations for the ethical and responsible use of generative artificial intelligence by postgraduate researchers. It aligns with institutional research integrity, data protection, and academic misconduct regulations.
Localized display only
This guidance sets out expectations for the ethical and responsible use of generative artificial intelligence by postgraduate researchers. It aligns with institutional research integrity, data protection, and academic misconduct regulations.
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
8 source attribution
Academic Misconduct and using AI responsibly - Royal Holloway Student Intranet
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
AI Tools - Royal Holloway Student Intranet
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
AI Use & Assessment - Royal Holloway Student Intranet
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
Guidance on the Use of Generative AI - Royal Holloway Student Intranet
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
Guidance on the Use of Generative AI in Postgraduate Research - Royal Holloway Doctoral School
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
Referencing the Use of AI - Royal Holloway Student Intranet
intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk
Regulations on Academic Misconduct 2025/26
royalholloway.ac.uk
Student Guidance to Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Related Offences
intranet.royalholloway.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.