Ann Arbor, United States Last checked

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Independent · Open access · Not an official university page

What would you like to check?

Search universities

Explore the current record by topic

Coursework

Conditional

The instructor determines permitted GenAI uses by course, assessment and activity, aligned with college misconduct policy. Read the syllabus and task instructions. Published permitted/restricted/banned examples are templates, not universal campus rules.

Official source ↗

Exams

Unclear

Follow the specific exam and college instructions. Current recaptured guidance establishes assessment-level instructor authority, but no exact exam authorization was revalidated. The Rackham explicit-permission claim remains held after source-access failure.

Official source ↗

Disclosure

Recommended

University principles call for appropriate disclosure and citation. Follow the actual course’s rules; sample disclosure appendices or bans are not automatically mandatory throughout U-M.

Official source ↗

Privacy and data

Restricted

Use approved services and check each permitted data type; external services without a U-M contract should receive only Low institutional data. No model training does not mean no prompt/history/log processing or vendor sharing. Uniform retention duration and authenticated sensitive-data matrices remain unresolved.

Official source ↗

Tools and access

Conditional

ITS offers U-M GPT, Maizey and GPT Toolkit for active U-M users, subject to U.S.-only terms. Google eligibility excludes sponsored affiliates, alumni and retirees. Tool access, data approval and assessment permission are separate.

Official source ↗

Research and publication

Recommended

Apply honesty, appropriate citation and human responsibility in research. OVPR discourages GenAI peer reviewing and strongly discourages commercial upload of another researcher’s grant application. Its secure-tool language/clarity exception and sponsor conditions remain. HRPP/Rackham-specific claims are held.

Official source ↗
More reviewed record topics

Academic integrity

Restricted

LSA distinguishes Instructor and SAA Resolution, presumes no responsibility while pending, and permits a response/support person. Course and college outcomes differ. LSA appeal is two weeks from the resolution-letter date. Rackham’s separate clock is not substituted; detector output is inquiry, not proof.

Official source ↗

Teaching guidance

Recommended

U-M does not recommend unreliable AI detectors; this is not a ban. Instructors should make course rules clear. School of Nursing guidance says AI should not be the sole grading basis and identifiable student work needs approved service/use; do not extend this unit rule campus-wide.

Official source ↗

Security and procurement

Restricted

Human-review AI-generated code; use professionally trained peer review for all new/significantly changed applications, especially High/Restricted data. Procurement Services should be the sole buyer for institutional AI handling Moderate/High/Restricted data. Per-service approval remains separate.

Official source ↗

Before you submit

Do

  • Check the actual course and assessment rules.
    Site advice
  • Follow task disclosure instructions and cite appropriately.
    Source guidance
  • For LSA, count the appeal period from the resolution-letter date.
    Requirement in this scope

Don’t

  • Do not turn service access into assessment permission.
    Site advice
  • Do not equate no training with no history or logs.
    Site advice
  • Avoid uploading another researcher’s proposal to commercial AI.
    Source guidance

AI use questioned?

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Course, college, service and research unit determine the applicable rule. LSA procedures do not replace Rackham or other schools.

Investigation & response

LSA instructors may use Instructor Resolution for non-egregious incidents meriting no consequence greater than zero on the assignment; remedial work may also apply. SAA Resolution is appropriate for possible course failure or more severe sanctions, previous responsibility findings, or falsified academic documents. While pending, students are presumed not responsible, may attend class, cannot drop/change grading option, and instructors may not impose penalties/remedial work. A pending end-of-term case may receive NR and prevents course credit/graduation.

Original evidence and scope

LSA instructors may use Instructor Resolution for non-egregious incidents meriting no consequence greater than zero on the assignment; remedial work may also apply. SAA Resolution is appropriate for possible course failure or more severe sanctions, previous responsibility findings, or falsified academic documents. While pending, students are presumed not responsible, may attend class, cannot drop/change grading option, and instructors may not impose penalties/remedial work. A pending end-of-term case may receive NR and prevents course credit/graduation.

umich-local-20261022-lsa-routes

LSA published procedures only; not Rackham or every school.

An instructor within LSA who believes academic misconduct has occurred may choose either Instructor Resolution: Resolve the matter directly with the student Appropriate when: the incident is not egregious and merits no consequence greater than a zero on the assignment, though the student may be required to do additional, remedial work (e.g., rewrite a paper). SAA Resolution: File a complaint to the Office of Student Academic Affairs, who will resolve the case.  Appropriate when: the sanction may result in the student failing the course or more severe sanction, the student has a previous finding of responsibility, or the student is suspected of falsifying or misrepresenting academic documents

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 595–609; characters 10379–12738; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
. Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to: cheating, plagiarism, inappropriate collaboration, falsification of data, records, or documents, and aiding and abetting dishonesty. Deadlines: The complaint for any alleged instance of academic misconduct should be filed as soon as practical from the date of occurrence and should be submitted within 2 months of the date of the incident. Privacy: Materials related to a formal complaint of academic misconduct or an instructor's report of a resolution will be maintained by the Office of Student Academic Affairs in compliance with the privacy expectations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). While a mis

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 595–609; characters 10379–12738; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
conduct case is pending, with either Instruction Resolution or SAA Resolution: The student is presumed to not be responsible for the alleged misconduct and the student may continue to attend class and receive grades. The instructor may NOT impose any penalty or require any remedial work until the case has been resolved. The student may NOT change registration in the course (e.g. drop the course or change the grading option to Pass/Fail). If the term ends and a final grade must be reported while a case is pending, the instructor should use the grade NR (No Report). NR is a temporary, neutral grade that may be used in special circumstances where a final grade is not yet able to be reported. Th

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 595–609; characters 10379–12738; excerpt offset 1400–2100

Official university source ↗
e student may not receive credit for the course in which the alleged misconduct occurred and may not graduate. Note: Students found responsible for academic misconduct with either resolution are not eligible to drop or choose pass/fail grading for the course.

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 595–609; characters 10379–12738; excerpt offset 2100–2359

Official university source ↗

In LSA SAA Resolution, the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee decides under the preponderance standard. Students receive allegations/evidence and may respond, present material and ask questions. Students should notify SAA when bringing a support person. The usual Honor Council participant does not advocate for or against the student.

Original evidence and scope

In LSA SAA Resolution, the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee decides under the preponderance standard. Students receive allegations/evidence and may respond, present material and ask questions. Students should notify SAA when bringing a support person. The usual Honor Council participant does not advocate for or against the student.

umich-local-20261022-lsa-investigation

LSA published procedures only; not Rackham or every school.

What an SAA Resolution is A faculty or staff member within LSA who believes academic misconduct has occurred may file a formal complaint of academic misconduct with the LSA Office of Student Academic Affairs who will determine if misconduct has occurred. Important: The instructor should not impose any penalty or require remedial work until the case has been resolved. Once a case has been filed with the Office of Student Academic Affairs, it may not be withdrawn without the approval of the Assistant Dean. Barring unforeseen circumstances, cases will be resolved within the academic term (and typically within three weeks) in which the incident occurs. SAA Resolution Procedures Reporting academi

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 658–679; characters 15656–19106; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
c misconduct Instructor reports a possible case of academic misconduct to SAA using the Report of Suspected Misconduct form Prior to the Academic Misconduct Meeting SAA sends an email to the student stating that an instructor has reported what they believe to be a possible case of academic misconduct. The email also includes a link to set up an Academic Misconduct Meeting.  Once an appointment is scheduled, SAA sends a confirmation email which contains evidence about the allegations of misconduct.  The Academic Misconduct Meeting will determine whether the student is responsible, or not, for the alleged misconduct. An accused student should prepare for the Academic Misconduct Meeting by revi

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 658–679; characters 15656–19106; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
ewing the information provided, asking any clarifying questions, and show up ready to present any of their own relevant information, read any statement, and/or ask further questions.  During the Academic Misconduct Meeting The Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee will describe the allegations made, detail the supporting evidence, and review the range of college-level sanctions (e.g. disciplinary probation, suspension, or expulsion). This is an opportunity for the student to be heard and to present their side of the incident. The student should be ready to present any relevant material, read a statement, and/or ask questions. Typically, in each meeting a representative of the LSA Stu

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 658–679; characters 15656–19106; excerpt offset 1400–2100

Official university source ↗
dent Honor Council participates, though they do not advocate for or against the student. Students should notify the Office of Student Academic Affairs if they will have a support person in attendance at the meeting. In certain circumstances, the Coordinator of Academic Integrity may give the student the opportunity to ask questions of the accusing party, either by exchanging written questions or by asking questions during a subsequent meeting. This additional step will be completed prior to the Coordinator or designee’s final decision. The meeting between the accused student and the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee may be virtual or in-person. Making a decision The Coordinator o

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 658–679; characters 15656–19106; excerpt offset 2100–2800

Official university source ↗
f Academic Integrity or designee determines whether a violation of the LSA Community Expectations of Academic Integrity has occurred and if the student is responsible for academic misconduct. The standard of review is preponderance. This means that the student is not considered responsible unless the evidence demonstrates that it is "more likely than not" that academic misconduct has occurred. The student will be informed by letter, with an email copy to the instructor(s), of the decision and sanction(s), if any, to be imposed. If a student is found not responsible for academic misconduct, the instructor(s) will grade the student accordingly.

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 658–679; characters 15656–19106; excerpt offset 2800–3450

Official university source ↗

Possible outcomes

In LSA, course-grade penalties follow the instructor’s syllabus/department policies; SAA may assign college sanctions including probation, reflective essay, suspension or expulsion. These are possible outcomes, not an automatic AI penalty.

Original evidence and scope

In LSA, course-grade penalties follow the instructor’s syllabus/department policies; SAA may assign college sanctions including probation, reflective essay, suspension or expulsion. These are possible outcomes, not an automatic AI penalty.

umich-local-20261022-lsa-outcomes

LSA published procedures only; not Rackham or every school.

If a student is found responsible for academic misconduct: Course-level sanctions: appropriate grade penalties for the misconduct will be left up to the instructor based on syllabus grade policies or department policies, if applicable. College-level sanctions: The student may be assigned college sanctions by the Office of Student Academic Affairs. Examples of these sanctions include:  Disciplinary probation - students are placed on probation for one year. As part of this process, a notation is placed on the student's unofficial transcript. This notation serves as a warning and reprimand that the student has been found responsible for academic misconduct. After that one year period, the notat

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 680–686; characters 19107–20495; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
ion is removed provided no further violations of academic misconduct have occurred. Reflective Essay - the student must write an essay about their experience, share what they have learned from it, and discuss how they intend to incorporate LSA Community Expectations into their personal and academic life moving forward. Suspension - the student is ineligible to enroll at the university for one semester and a permanent notation is added to their transcript. In order to re-enroll in future terms, the student must write a petition for reactivation at least two weeks prior to the start of the term they wish to enroll. Expulsion - The student is permanently removed from the university.

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 680–686; characters 19107–20495; excerpt offset 700–1388

Official university source ↗

For another school’s student in an LSA course, SAA determines the course integrity violation and instructor course sanction authority; the student’s home school imposes college sanctions, including any recommendations it accepts.

Original evidence and scope

For another school’s student in an LSA course, SAA determines the course integrity violation and instructor course sanction authority; the student’s home school imposes college sanctions, including any recommendations it accepts.

umich-local-20261022-lsa-cross-school

LSA published procedures only; not Rackham or every school.

If a student registered in another school is accused of misconduct in an LSA course: SAA's authority includes deciding whether or not the alleged action is a violation of Academic Integrity and whether course-level sanctions may be applied if the student is found responsible for misconduct. Course-level sanctions are left up to the instructor. SAA will recommend a sanction or sanctions to the School or College in which the student is registered, but that School or College has the responsibility for imposing any recommendation or additional sanction it determines appropriate.

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 729–732; characters 23599–24180; excerpt offset 0–581

Official university source ↗

Review & appeal

An LSA student found responsible may submit a written appeal to the Academic Judiciary Committee within two weeks from the date of the resolution letter, challenging responsibility, the college sanction or both. Grounds include serious procedural error, significant previously unavailable evidence or excessive college sanctions. Sanctions remain during appeal. Discrimination/prohibited-behavior claims must also go to ECRT and pause appeal. AJC may reverse responsibility or recommend keeping, reducing or increasing sanctions.

Original evidence and scope

An LSA student found responsible may submit a written appeal to the Academic Judiciary Committee within two weeks from the date of the resolution letter, challenging responsibility, the college sanction or both. Grounds include serious procedural error, significant previously unavailable evidence or excessive college sanctions. Sanctions remain during appeal. Discrimination/prohibited-behavior claims must also go to ECRT and pause appeal. AJC may reverse responsibility or recommend keeping, reducing or increasing sanctions.

umich-local-20261022-lsa-appeal

LSA published procedures only; not Rackham or every school.

A student who has been found responsible for academic misconduct may submit a written appeal to the LSA Academic Judiciary Committee (AJC), a committee composed of both undergraduate students and faculty members from the College of LSA. Note: If students submit an appeal request, college- and course-level sanctions remain in place while it is pending. If an appeal is based on discrimination or other prohibited behavior, students must also file a report with the Equity, Civil Rights & Title IX Office (ECRT). The appeal process will pause until that matter is resolved. Procedures The student must submit an appeal within two weeks from the date of the resolution letter. The appeal must state wh

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 700–716; characters 21382–23503; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
at is being appealed: the finding of academic misconduct, the college sanction imposed, or both. The appeal must also state and describe in detail at least one of the following grounds for appeal: The procedure was violated in a way that seriously compromised the investigation and/or conclusions. There is significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the meeting with the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee. The college sanctions are excessive relative to the violation. Appeals are not granted unless one or more of the above criteria are met and supported by evidence.  Making a decision A member of the AJC will decide whether the appeal has sufficient grounds to m

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 700–716; characters 21382–23503; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
ove forward. If it does not, the appeal process ends and the Office of Student Academic Affairs' decision stands. There is no further appeal opportunity. If it is determined that grounds for an appeal have been met, a panel of AJC members will review your case alongside evidence from the instructor and documentation of how the Office of Student Academic Affairs reached its decision. After reviewing the appeal, the AJC may: Reverse the finding of responsibility (overturn the original decision), or Uphold the finding of responsibility. If it's upheld, the Committee may recommend that the Office of Student Affairs keep the sanction as is, reduce it, or increase it. Students will be notified of

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 700–716; characters 21382–23503; excerpt offset 1400–2100

Official university source ↗
the outcome by email.

Captured source text; bounded full context, actual line range recorded; Extracted text SHA256 b2885e1102d81d8af676f334ee328a4c4b37125f32ddf7ec1e4df0f47c8e9076; original binding lines 700–716; characters 21382–23503; excerpt offset 2100–2121

Official university source ↗

AI tools & access

These tools have audience, account, mode or purpose limits; access is not established for all students and does not grant assessment permission. Check each access condition.

  • Google GeminiInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Eligible U-M Google account via gemini.google.com; U.S.-only terms.

  • Google Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM)Institutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Eligible U-M Google account via notebook.google.com; U.S.-only terms.

  • U-M GPTInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Institutional sign-in; exact current entitlement not authenticated.

  • U-M GPT ToolkitInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Follow ITS Toolkit onboarding; API credentials not tested.

  • U-M MaizeyInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Use institutional onboarding; permissions for each dataset must be checked.

  • Adobe FireflyInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Eligible faculty/staff/students use university enterprise Adobe channel.

Record updatesLast 90 days · Recorded updates: 2

Updates to this site's reviewed record, not confirmation that the university changed its policy.

  1. Page update

    Other records · Page update

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  2. Held / removed from current conclusions · Record addition · Site correction

    Coursework · Exams · 8 more topics · Records involved: 27 (13 corrected / adjusted · 13 added · 1 held)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

Reviewed claims

26

Held conclusions and historical evidence (1)

These original records and prior review states are retained for provenance, not as current permissions, duties or precise deadlines.

Google NotebookLM is listed for University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in an official university AI tools source. Derived availability: allowed. Derived endorsement type: officially endorsed.

Current status: held; historical review state: agent_reviewed

cl-university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-notebooklm-254

U-M's official AI Tools page says Google NotebookLM is an AI-powered research and note-taking assistant available to all University of Michigan faculty, staff, and students.

Official sources

13 official URLs; 13 source attributions and their captured versions retained.

Appropriate Use of AI Services & U-M Policy

genai.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

Appropriate Use of AI Services & U-M Policy · 2026-10-23T01:39:13.878427Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

7b24037815ac2e0d6673a6e6b4b66890c1755fc7a59b336eb5e247ef34e57821

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI Tools | U-M Generative AI

genai.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

AI Tools | U-M Generative AI · 2026-10-23T01:39:13.878781Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

6a1bd7d2d0659d50d6e03b3ff8ba18e64e75e28cafbb67de400c22e62357b74a

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

ITS AI Services

its.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

ITS AI Services · 2026-10-23T01:39:13.878868Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

9777508b3bf9712d54d2f8e48999096c557270032f8cbf94d13a4389b916929a

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

U-M Guidance for Faculty/Instructors

genai.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

U-M Guidance for Faculty/Instructors · 2026-10-23T01:39:13.878938Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

4ab93d5e509ed9a9ef25039f8f8c62e70b0f55e93f11478e8d9cfdc6b435e705

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Course Policies & Syllabi Statements

genai.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

Course Policies & Syllabi Statements · 2026-10-23T01:39:15.252727Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

a40033e2b1bca5d6fd5a8c5f30bcfb526fefb99a45e72d9d9868f7b61ed00e7e

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

U-M Guidance for Students

genai.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

U-M Guidance for Students · 2026-10-23T01:39:16.500949Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

1ae5f5b3ac8bac3633bc9f0fd2528be969e03b2e1c0915eb444a82f149c84f07

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Procedures for Resolving Violations of Academic Integrity - LSA

lsa.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

Procedures for Resolving Violations of Academic Integrity - LSA · 2026-10-23T01:39:16.944292Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

5e4b4638287da2b552656263a5ff04548e64b79ad9128c9e9547991cc9afe25e

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Plagiarism Detection with Generative AI Tools - ITS

teamdynamix.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

Plagiarism Detection with Generative AI Tools - ITS · 2026-10-23T01:38:20.994164Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

a955fb5487e4e140e4532ae5bacbdd855da2a027e56bdfa917c3a3687d502829

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Google Gemini & Gemini Notebook - ITS

its.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

Google Gemini & Gemini Notebook - ITS · 2026-10-23T01:39:17.719432Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

ccbf99e4ab4f329cd6dc2545a7a8c660b551dbe3bc7357f2166bcf752447aff9

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

ITS AI Services Privacy Notice

its.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

ITS AI Services Privacy Notice · 2026-10-23T01:39:17.937877Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

83f5cc09e7ef3fe550e0261e0207c50c899cfd2d32dc65fca719de0ad152fa57

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

ITS AI Services Terms of Service

its.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

ITS AI Services Terms of Service · 2026-10-23T01:39:18.777426Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

eddbfedc797c82850a29078ea33519ca288b9689cc49526aabaf93fe715feb7f

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

UMSN Faculty AI Reference Guide

teamdynamix.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

UMSN Faculty AI Reference Guide · 2026-10-23T01:38:21.265369Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

64912597152bcdeeadaad372249bb798fb5a8b8359e30be6fa05a0b5e6cb9864

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

OVPR Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in Internal Peer Review

research.umich.edu

University official source

Hash and captured version

OVPR Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in Internal Peer Review · 2026-10-23T01:38:21.354357Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

a9f9a5e7ab31c89aeb784a0907efafb14f549b9dd4252d6ec250537475af1966

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗
Record information, JSON & citation

Review layers: claim review applies to the claims only. Analysis is a separate machine-generated summary awaiting review. Coverage scores do not establish complete policy knowledge.

Claim review state
agent_reviewed
Analysis review state
machine_candidate
Record revision
uq-hkust-michigan-v6-r4-20261022
Dataset release
public-release-20260924-002
Correction published
Student snapshot
Not published
Current reviewed JSON · Historical baseline

Published V6 presentation; JSON and MCP retain the existing public record. Supplementary quotations and scope notes remain pending review. Local candidate corrections, tools and student summaries are not approved for publication. Institution-wide audit remains PARTIAL.

  • All63 original objects/14publicIDs/12historical tools retained,24 original remaining keys and original held detector object preserved. No supplied student snapshot invented.
  • Bounded20 normal requests,15 alternatives at most once each. s13–s17 alternative429: data guidance,HRPP,research,Rackham,admissions not re-fetched. s26/s27 normal403 and known authenticated; no bypass.
  • Research candidates04,05,06,07,10,13 remain held because their exact source recapture failed; original claims, research excerpts and clocks retained privately, not projected as current evidence.
  • Exams unclear: direct assessment authority captured but no specific exam rule revalidated. LSA two weeks from resolution-letter DATE must not be replaced by unbound Rackham15business days after RECEIPT.
  • 13 captured sources:3 original raw responses and10 explicitly labelled Firecrawl-rendered HTML sources, not origin-response bytes.49 research bindings plus11new bounded context bindings.
  • Uniform prompt retention duration, per-service sensitive-data matrices, thesis/deposit, sponsor rules, accommodations and all-college coverage unresolved.
  • Public APIs/MCP/search/history/snapshots/notifications unchanged; independent coordinator semantic acceptance and publication authorization pending.
        Current reviewed JSON
        Questions students ask

        Questions students ask

        Can I use AI for my coursework?

        The instructor determines permitted GenAI uses by course, assessment and activity, aligned with college misconduct policy. Read the syllabus and task instructions. Published permitted/restricted/banned examples are templates, not universal campus rules.

        View evidence →
        Do I need to disclose AI use?

        University principles call for appropriate disclosure and citation. Follow the actual course’s rules; sample disclosure appendices or bans are not automatically mandatory throughout U-M.

        View evidence →
        Can I upload sensitive data?

        Use approved services and check each permitted data type; external services without a U-M contract should receive only Low institutional data. No model training does not mean no prompt/history/log processing or vendor sharing. Uniform retention duration and authenticated sensitive-data matrices remain unresolved.

        View evidence →
        Which tools can I access?

        ITS offers U-M GPT, Maizey and GPT Toolkit for active U-M users, subject to U.S.-only terms. Google eligibility excludes sponsored affiliates, alumni and retirees. Tool access, data approval and assessment permission are separate.

        View evidence →
        What are the examination rules?

        Follow the specific exam and college instructions. Current recaptured guidance establishes assessment-level instructor authority, but no exact exam authorization was revalidated. The Rackham explicit-permission claim remains held after source-access failure.

        View evidence →
        What rules apply to research and publication?

        Apply honesty, appropriate citation and human responsibility in research. OVPR discourages GenAI peer reviewing and strongly discourages commercial upload of another researcher’s grant application. Its secure-tool language/clarity exception and sponsor conditions remain. HRPP/Rackham-specific claims are held.

        View evidence →
        What counts as academic misconduct?

        LSA distinguishes Instructor and SAA Resolution, presumes no responsibility while pending, and permits a response/support person. Course and college outcomes differ. LSA appeal is two weeks from the resolution-letter date. Rackham’s separate clock is not substituted; detector output is inquiry, not proof.

        View evidence →
        What guidance applies to teaching?

        U-M does not recommend unreliable AI detectors; this is not a ban. Instructors should make course rules clear. School of Nursing guidance says AI should not be the sole grading basis and identifiable student work needs approved service/use; do not extend this unit rule campus-wide.

        View evidence →
        What security and procurement requirements apply?

        Human-review AI-generated code; use professionally trained peer review for all new/significantly changed applications, especially High/Restricted data. Procurement Services should be the sole buyer for institutional AI handling Moderate/High/Restricted data. Per-service approval remains separate.

        View evidence →
        When was this record checked?

        Record checked:

        Record version →
        Which official sources support these rules?Official source →
        Where can I read the full evidence?

        26 · Full policy evidence

        Full policy evidence →