Policy presence
University of Reading has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Reading, United Kingdom
University of Reading
University of Reading is listed as QS 2026 rank =194. University of Reading has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 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 Reading is listed as QS 2026 rank =194. University of Reading has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 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 Reading as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 15, 2026 and last changed on May 15, 2026. The record contains 6 source-backed claims, including 6 reviewed claims, from 5 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-reading.json. The entity-level confidence is 93%. 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 AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: DeepSeek, Microsoft Copilot.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
- Privacy, sensitive-data, or security 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
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.
Coursework
University of Reading has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
University of Reading has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Privacy and data entry
University of Reading has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Reading has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Approved tools
University of Reading has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Named AI services
University of Reading has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Teaching guidance
No source-backed public claim about teaching guidance is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about instructor, classroom, assessment-design, or syllabus guidance.
Research guidance
No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.
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.
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
6 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Reading assessment guidance uses a three-category GenAI framework: Category 1 prohibits GenAI use, Category 2 permits GenAI as a tool to aid development of the assessment, and Category 3 actively encourages and evaluates GenAI use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: three GenAI assessment categories: Category 1 prohibited; Category 2 permitted to aid development of the assessment; Category 3 encouraged and evaluated
Original evidence
Evidence 1Category 1 prohibits any GenAI use; Category 2 permits GenAI as a tool to aid development of the assessment; Category 3 actively encourages and evaluates GenAI use.
Academic Integrity
University of Reading's Section 9 Annex states that misuse of Generative AI is a form of cheating.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: GenAI misuse is a form of cheating
Original evidence
Evidence 1The misuse of Generative AI is a form of cheating.
Academic Integrity
University of Reading student guidance tells students to assume Category 1 when an assignment brief says nothing about GenAI.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: silent assignment brief means assume Category 1
Original evidence
Evidence 1If the assignment brief says nothing about GenAI, assume its Category 1.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Reading student guidance says DeepSeek is blocked and must not be used on University devices or networks.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: DeepSeek blocked on University devices and networks
Original evidence
Evidence 1DeepSeek is blocked and must not be used on University devices or networks.
Privacy
University of Reading staff guidance says Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat should not be used for any data set containing personal or personal sensitive data.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: M365 Copilot Chat should not be used with personal or personal sensitive data
Original evidence
Evidence 1you should not use it for any data set containing personal or personal sensitive data.
Academic Integrity
University of Reading's Study Advice LibGuide tells students doing assessed work to first check with the module convenor whether Generative AI use is permitted.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: check module convenor before using GenAI for assessed work
Original evidence
Evidence 1For assessed work, you should always first check with the module convenor whether use of Generative AI is permitted.
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
5 source attribution
Annex 1: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools, Academic Integrity and Academic Misconduct
reading.ac.uk
Generative AI and AI meeting assistants guidance
reading.ac.uk
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Assessment
reading.ac.uk
University policy around AI - Generative Artificial Intelligence and University Study
libguides.reading.ac.uk
Using Gen AI in your assessments
reading.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.