Policy presence
University of Leeds has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Leeds, United Kingdom
University of Leeds
University of Leeds is listed as QS 2026 rank 86. University of Leeds has 9 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
University of Leeds is listed as QS 2026 rank 86. University of Leeds has 9 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 University of Leeds as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 13, 2026 and last changed on May 13, 2026. The record contains 9 source-backed claims, including 9 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/university-of-leeds.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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- 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
University of Leeds has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Leeds has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
University of Leeds has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Privacy and data entry
University of Leeds has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Leeds has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
University of Leeds has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Leeds has 4 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Leeds has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Leeds has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
University of Leeds 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
9 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
University of Leeds data-restriction guidance says certain data, including passwords, usernames, PII, sensitive or confidential material, University IP, and some copyright-protected or third-party data, must never be put into AI software.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: restricted_data_must_never_be_input_to_ai
Original evidence
Evidence 1Certain types of data must never be put into any AI software. These include: passwords and usernames; personally identifiable information (PII) or other sensitive or confidential material; any data related to University Intellectual Property; any data that is protected by Copyright, unless explicit permission for its use with AI tools has been obtained.
Academic Integrity
University of Leeds assessment guidance says students can use generative AI to help learning but cannot use AI to generate or falsify work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_may_support_learning_not_generate_or_falsify_work
Original evidence
Evidence 1As a general principle, you can use generative AI to help you learn but cannot use AI to generate or falsify work.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Leeds assessment guidance uses a red, amber, and green traffic-light system to indicate how GenAI should be used in taught student assessments.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: red_amber_green_genai_assessment_categories
Original evidence
Evidence 1The University of Leeds uses a three-tiered traffic light system to indicate how Gen AI should be used in assessments.
Academic Integrity
University of Leeds GenAI acknowledgement guidance says students must acknowledge GenAI use in an Acknowledgements or Declarations section when it functionally assisted their academic work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: must_acknowledge_functional_genai_assistance
Original evidence
Evidence 1You must acknowledge the use of Gen AI in an 'Acknowledgements' or 'Declarations' section when you have used it as a functional tool to assist you as you were creating any academic work.
Research
University of Leeds postgraduate researcher guidance says PGRs must not use GenAI to write their thesis, transfer report, or other work, falsify work, or breach research assessment and examination guidance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: pgrs_must_not_use_genai_to_write_or_falsify_research_assessment_work
Original evidence
Evidence 1You must not use Gen AI to write your thesis, transfer report or other work, falsify work or breach guidelines for the research assessment and examination processes.
Teaching
In Leeds taught-student assessment guidance, amber-category assessments permit GenAI only in an assistive role as specified by the module tutor and required by the assessment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: amber_genai_assistive_as_specified_by_tutor
Original evidence
Evidence 1Under this category, you are permitted to use Gen AI tools in an assistive role as specified by the module tutor and required by the assessment.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Leeds staff guidance says all material wholly or substantially generated using an AI tool should be declared clearly in the document in which it occurs.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: staff_should_declare_wholly_or_substantially_ai_generated_material
Original evidence
Evidence 1All material that is wholly or substantially generated using an AI tool should be declared clearly in the document in which it occurs, whether the document is for internal or external use.
Academic Integrity
University of Leeds Library guidance says unpermitted GenAI use or failure to correctly acknowledge allowed GenAI use in assessment will be classed as academic misconduct.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unpermitted_or_unacknowledged_genai_use_classed_as_academic_misconduct
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you are found to have used generative AI when you weren't supposed to, this will be classed as academic misconduct. If you do not correctly acknowledge the use of generative AI, this will be classed as academic misconduct.
Security Review
University of Leeds GenAI tools guidance says Copilot should be used for work purposes, including assessed work, unless there is a good reason why it cannot be used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: copilot_should_be_used_for_work_purposes_unless_good_reason
Original evidence
Evidence 1For work purposes, including assessed work, Copilot should be used unless there is a good reason why it can't be.
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 integrity and plagiarism | Library | University of Leeds
library.leeds.ac.uk
Acknowledging use of Generative AI | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
AI and assessments | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
Assessment categories for research degrees | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
Categories of assessments | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
Data restrictions and security | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
Generative AI tools | Generative AI
generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk
Guidance to Staff on the use of Artificial Intelligence | Governance and Compliance
secretariat.leeds.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.