Liverpool, United Kingdom

University of Liverpool

Record status

Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedClaim coverage7 reviewedEvidence-backed claims7Reviewed7Candidate0Official sources6Source languageenPublic JSON/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-liverpool.json

Policy profile

Coverage score100/100Coverage labelbroad public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence80%

Academic integrity

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

RestrictedMachine candidateConfidence81%Evidence1Sources1

Approved tools

University of Liverpool has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.

AllowedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence1Sources1

Security and procurement

University of Liverpool has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: allowed.

AllowedMachine candidateConfidence80%Evidence1Sources1

AI tools

Derived tool records1

Microsoft Copilot

University of Liverpool

Tool
Microsoft Copilot
About
Not specified
Access
Not specified
Cost
Not specified
Availability
Allowed
Review
Agent reviewed

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 reviewedConfidence95%

Normalized value: unacceptable_genai_education_uses_listed

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Unacceptable 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 reviewedConfidence95%

Normalized value: genai_personal_data_gdpr_safeguards_required

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Any 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 reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: central_ai_guidance_hub

Original evidence

Evidence 1
On 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 reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: central_lta_guidance_for_academics_and_students

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The 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 reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: microsoft_copilot_endorsed_genai_chat_tool

Original evidence

Evidence 1
For 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 reviewedConfidence94%

Normalized value: responsible_research_use_transparency_accountability

Original evidence

Evidence 1
The 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 reviewedConfidence93%

Normalized value: golden_rules_support_attribution_data_accuracy

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Use 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

Official sources

6 source attribution

Change log

Last checkedMay 14, 2026Last changedMay 14, 2026Open change log

Corrections

Back to universities