Bristol, United Kingdom

University of Bristol

Record status

Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedClaim coverage4 reviewedEvidence-backed claims4Reviewed4Candidate0Official sources4Source languageenPublic JSON/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-bristol.json

Policy profile

Coverage score60/100Coverage labelmoderate public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence81%

Policy presence

University of Bristol has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.

UnclearMachine candidateConfidence81%Evidence1Sources1

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.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

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.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

Academic integrity

University of Bristol has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.

Conditionally AllowedMachine candidateConfidence82%Evidence1Sources1

Approved tools

No source-backed public claim identifying approved or licensed AI tools is present in this profile.

The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence that identifies institutionally approved, licensed, procured, or enterprise AI tools.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

Named AI services

University of Bristol has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: blocked.

BlockedMachine candidateConfidence83%Evidence1Sources1

Teaching guidance

University of Bristol has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence2Sources2

Research guidance

University of Bristol has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence82%Evidence2Sources2

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.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

AI tools

Derived tool records0

No tool-level evidence is published for this record yet. Broad AI tool mentions are not expanded into named tool conclusions.

Evidence-backed claims

4 reviewed evidence-backed public claim

Research

PGR students at University of Bristol are not permitted to use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT to write any text used in their thesis or APM reports, as research degree students must demonstrate ability to write about research in their own words.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence97%

Normalized value: PGR students prohibited from using generative AI to write thesis or APM report text

Original evidence

Evidence 1
To be awarded a research degree, you must meet several key standards in your research training. One of these is the ability to write about your research in your own words. This critical research skill is tested through your thesis and through your annual progress monitoring (APM) reports. For this reason, you are not permitted to use generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to write any text that is used in your thesis or in your APM reports.

Localized display only

PGR students not permitted to use generative AI to write thesis or APM text

Academic Integrity

University of Bristol considers the use of AI or translation tools to be cheating if used for more than generating the occasional short phrase within a sentence or checking basic grammar and spelling, unless assessment instructions allow more comprehensive use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%

Normalized value: AI use beyond occasional phrases and grammar checking is considered cheating

Original evidence

Evidence 1
We consider the use of AI or translation tools to be cheating if used for more than: generating the occasional short phrase within a sentence, checking basic grammar and spelling. Some assessments may allow more comprehensive use of these tools, but this will be detailed in your assessment instructions.

Localized display only

AI use beyond occasional phrases and grammar checking is cheating

Teaching

University of Bristol has published official guidance on generative AI use in taught degree programmes, stating that generative AI should not replace activities that develop intellectual rigour, student agency, and students' capacity to work through complex problems themselves.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%

Normalized value: University has official generative AI guidance for taught programmes

Original evidence

Evidence 1
This guidance sets out the University of Bristol's approach to using generative AI on taught degree programmes. The responsible use of generative AI is foundational to our educational vision to inspire students, and to equip well-rounded graduates with skills for the future. Generative AI should not replace activities that develop intellectual rigour, student agency, and students' capacity to work through complex problems themselves.

Localized display only

University guidance for generative AI on taught degree programmes

Teaching

University of Bristol uses a four-category system for AI use in assessments: Category 1 (prohibited - no AI use), Category 2 (minimal - spelling/grammar only, default), Category 3 (selective - certain tasks as specified), and Category 4 (integral - AI required for assessment).

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: Four-category AI assessment system: prohibited, minimal, selective, integral

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Category 1: prohibited (not allowed) - You cannot use AI tools at all, including spelling and grammar checkers. Category 2: minimal (a little) - You can use AI tools for spelling and grammar check. You can use it for rewording occasional phrases, but not sentences, large parts of text or paragraphs. Category 3: selective (certain tasks) - AI tools can be used in certain ways. Your lecturer will tell you what you can use it for. Category 4: integral (important) - AI tools are needed for the assessment.

Localized display only

Four AI assessment categories: prohibited, minimal, selective, integral

Candidate claims

0 machine or needs-review claim

Official sources

4 source attribution

Change log

Last checkedMay 12, 2026Last changedMay 12, 2026Open change log

Corrections

Back to universities