Policy presence
University of Reading has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Reading, United Kingdom
University of Reading
Record status
Review: Agent reviewed
Policy profile
Review: Machine candidate
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.
AI tools
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
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