Policy presence
University of Liverpool has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Liverpool, United Kingdom
University of Liverpool
University of Liverpool is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. University of Liverpool has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 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 Liverpool is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. University of Liverpool has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 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 Liverpool as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 2026. The record contains 7 source-backed claims, including 7 reviewed claims, from 6 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-liverpool.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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Other policy claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: 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
University of Liverpool has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Liverpool has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Liverpool has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Liverpool has 4 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Liverpool has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Liverpool has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Named AI services
University of Liverpool has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: required.
Teaching guidance
University of Liverpool has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Liverpool has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
University of Liverpool has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
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
Liverpool lists unacceptable uses of generative AI in education, including unreviewed copying of AI-generated content into assessment materials or feedback, using AI for grades or final assessment decisions, uploading protected student or confidential information to public AI platforms without required review, and creating or modifying official policy documents without appropriate review and approval.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unacceptable_genai_education_uses_listed
Original evidence
Evidence 1Unacceptable uses of generative AI in education include copying and pasting AI-generated content directly into assessment briefs, marking rubrics, or feedback without review; using AI to generate grades or make final assessment decisions; uploading student work, personal data, or confidential information to public AI platforms without first completing a Data Protection Impact Assessment.
Privacy
Liverpool's legal, security, and data-protection guidance says GenAI use must comply with UK GDPR and that personal information should not be uploaded or shared with AI tools unless necessary and appropriate safeguards are in place.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_personal_data_gdpr_safeguards_required
Original evidence
Evidence 1Any use of generative AI must be compliant with UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). No personal information should be uploaded or shared with any AI tool unless it is necessary, and appropriate safeguarding and protection measures are in place.
Source Status
The University of Liverpool has a central AI policies and guidance hub that collates generative AI guidance covering golden rules, legal/security/data protection, learning/teaching/assessment, and research.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: central_ai_guidance_hub
Original evidence
Evidence 1On this page, we have collated our University guidance on generative AI including golden rules, legal, security and data protection, as well as existing guidance on using AI in learning, teaching and assessment, and finally, guidance on generative AI for research.
Teaching
Liverpool's central GenAI learning, teaching, and assessment page says the University has devised guidance to help academics and students understand its position and make informed decisions on when and how to use GenAI.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: central_lta_guidance_for_academics_and_students
Original evidence
Evidence 1The University of Liverpool has devised guidance to help both academics and students understand the University’s position on GenAI in teaching, learning and assessment, and to make informed decisions on when and how to use it.
Ai Tool Treatment
For University work, Liverpool says staff and students should use Microsoft Copilot as the endorsed generative AI chat tool, provided through the University's Microsoft 365 environment with data governance and safeguards aligned to institutional requirements.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: microsoft_copilot_endorsed_genai_chat_tool
Original evidence
Evidence 1For University work, staff and students should use Microsoft Copilot – the endorsed generative AI chat tool. Copilot is provided through the University's Microsoft 365 environment, with data governance and safeguards aligned to our institutional requirements.
Research
Liverpool's research guidance says the University supports responsible and ethical GAI use in research, while expecting researchers and professional services colleagues to apply critical judgement, maintain transparency, prioritize integrity, and remain accountable for research outputs and related materials.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: responsible_research_use_transparency_accountability
Original evidence
Evidence 1The University expects all researchers and professional services colleagues to apply critical judgement, maintain transparency, and prioritise integrity at all times. Users remain fully accountable for all research outputs, submissions, analyses, and assessment materials - regardless of whether AI tools were used in their preparation.
Other
Liverpool's golden rules frame GenAI as a support tool rather than a substitute, and include expectations to acknowledge AI use where required, protect personal and sensitive data, and verify facts.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: golden_rules_support_attribution_data_accuracy
Original evidence
Evidence 1Use AI to support your work, but do not copy-paste outputs into assessed work, research submissions, or official documents without review and attribution. Where required, acknowledge AI use in your work. Include the tool name, version, and date of use for transparency.
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
6 source attribution
Foundations of AI
liverpool.ac.uk
Golden rules
liverpool.ac.uk
Legal, security and data protection
liverpool.ac.uk
University guidance on GenAI in learning, teaching and assessment
liverpool.ac.uk
University guidance on generative artificial intelligence for research
liverpool.ac.uk
University of Liverpool policies and guidance on AI
liverpool.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.