Policy presence
University of Brighton has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Brighton, United Kingdom
University of Brighton
University of Brighton has 6 source-backed AI policy claims from 3 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 6 reviewed claims. Last checked May 20, 2026.
University of Brighton AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Brighton has 6 source-backed AI policy claims from 3 official source attributions, including 6 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 20, 2026. Discovery context: University of Brighton is listed as QS 2026 rank 801-850.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Brighton as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 20, 2026 and last changed on May 20, 2026. The record contains 6 source-backed claims, including 6 reviewed claims, from 3 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-brighton.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
University of Brighton has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Brighton has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Brighton has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
No source-backed public claim about privacy or data-entry restrictions is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about personal, confidential, sensitive, regulated, or student data entry into AI tools.
Academic integrity
University of Brighton has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Brighton has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: required.
Named AI services
University of Brighton has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: required.
Teaching guidance
University of Brighton has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Brighton has 1 source-backed public claim 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
6 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
University of Brighton PGR admissions guidance requires applicants who use AI to acknowledge how GenAI was used, and says applications may be withdrawn or studies terminated where false information or substantial GenAI fabrication is found.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: PGR applicants using AI must acknowledge use; false or substantially generated applications can have consequences.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Applicants who use AI to develop or support their application must include a short statement acknowledging how Gen AI has been used. If it is suspected that an application is supported by false information or is substantially generated using Gen AI tools, we will withdraw the application.
Academic Integrity
University of Brighton PGR admissions guidance says applicants may use GenAI to support applications, such as brainstorming or proofreading, but must not use GenAI to generate large amounts of content or write a personal statement or research proposal.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: PGR applicants may use GenAI support, but not for substantial generated application content.
Original evidence
Evidence 1You can use Gen AI tools (eg Chat GTP, Gemini) to support your application but you must not use Gen AI to generate large amounts of content. This means you may, for example, use AI to help you brainstorm ideas or proofread your writing but you must not ask AI to write your personal statement or research proposal.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Brighton student guidance says information generated by GenAI requires fact-checking, should not be relied on alone, and should be verified via more reliable sources.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: GenAI outputs require fact-checking and independent verification.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Assume any information generated by GenAI requires fact-checking. Do not rely solely on the output without doing your own independent research. Verify the information via other more reliable sources.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Brighton guidance says the university has an institutional license for Microsoft Copilot chatbot, while noting that outputs still need to be verified and fact checked.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Institutional Microsoft Copilot license with verification reminder.
Original evidence
Evidence 1The University of Brighton has an institutional license for Microsoft Copilot chatbot, which: Provides answers with citations to sources for extra transparency. Outputs still need to be verified and fact checked.
Academic Integrity
University of Brighton student guidance tells students to check whether GenAI is allowed before using it for an assignment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Students are reminded to check assignment-level GenAI permission.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Before using GenAI for an assignment, remember to check whether it is allowed, here is some guidance on using GenAI in assignments.
Teaching
University of Brighton GenAI ethics guidance frames ethical considerations as a starting point for students to see AI in context, think critically, and make informed decisions about how and when to use it.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Students are guided to consider GenAI ethics critically and contextually.
Original evidence
Evidence 1This information is not meant to discourage you from using AI. It is meant to provide a starting point to see AI in context, think critically and make informed decisions about how and when to use it.
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
3 source attribution
Ethics and Generative AI
libguides.brighton.ac.uk
Use of Generative AI for PGR Admissions
brighton.ac.uk
Using Generative AI
libguides.brighton.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.