Policy presence
University of Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Guildford, United Kingdom
University of Surrey
University of Surrey is listed as QS 2026 rank =262. University of Surrey has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 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 Surrey is listed as QS 2026 rank =262. University of Surrey has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 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 Surrey as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 4 source-backed claims, including 4 reviewed claims, from 3 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-surrey.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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- 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 Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
University of Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
University of Surrey has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Surrey has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Approved tools
University of Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Surrey has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Surrey has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
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
4 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
University of Surrey's GenAI procedure says personal, confidential, and commercially sensitive information, including intellectual property, must not be entered into GenAI tools unless those tools are approved by IT Services and meet security and compliance requirements.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: sensitive_data_requires_it_approved_genai_tools
Original evidence
Evidence 1To reduce the risk of data breaches and misuse, personal, confidential, and commercially sensitive information (including Intellectual Property) must NOT be entered into GenAI tools--internal or external--unless they are approved by IT Services and meet the organisation's security and compliance requirements.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Surrey's GenAI procedure says all users must read and understand the procedure before using any form of GenAI during University work, and frames GenAI use as supporting teaching, research, and operations while protecting information and integrity.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: central_genai_procedure_requires_user_familiarity
Original evidence
Evidence 1This procedure sets out how GenAI tools may be used within the University to support teaching, research, and operations, while protecting information, complying with legal and regulatory requirements, and maintaining academic and professional integrity. All users must read and understand this procedure before engaging with any form of GenAI during University work.
Research
University of Surrey's CAQDAS guidance for qualitative data analysis says researchers intending to use Generative AI for any aspect of qualitative data analysis must be upfront with participants and seek their consent for using their data in that way.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: qda_genai_use_requires_participant_transparency_and_consent_guidance
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you intend to use Generative AI for any aspect of qualitative data analysis, you must be upfront about it with participants and seek their consent for you using their data in this way.
Academic Integrity
University of Surrey's MySurrey Help page advises students considering generative AI tools in their work to read the student GenAI guidance and to check assessment briefs or module leaders for the level of AI use permitted in a specific assessment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_should_check_assessment_specific_ai_permissions
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you are thinking of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, etc., in your work, the University has produced guidelines for students on responsible use of generative AI (Gen AI). It is important to read and familiarise yourself with these guidelines. In addition, always check your Assessment Briefs or consult your Module Leaders about the levels of AI use permitted for any specific assessment.
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
3 source attribution
Ethics of AI in QDA
surrey.ac.uk
Generative AI Procedure
surrey.ac.uk
Where can I find help and advice about using artificial intelligence responsibly in my work?
help.surrey.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.