Policy presence
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Cambridge, United Kingdom
University of Cambridge
University of Cambridge has 12 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 12 reviewed claims. Last checked May 5, 2026.
University of Cambridge AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Cambridge has 12 source-backed AI policy claims from 6 official source attributions, including 12 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 5, 2026. Discovery context: University of Cambridge is listed as QS 2026 rank 6.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Cambridge as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 5, 2026 and last changed on May 17, 2026. The record contains 12 source-backed claims, including 12 reviewed claims, from 6 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-cambridge.json. The entity-level confidence is 98%. 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 Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Procurement claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Gemini.
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
University of Cambridge has 4 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Cambridge has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Cambridge has 5 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Cambridge has 3 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Cambridge has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
University of Cambridge has 2 source-backed public claims for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
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
12 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
A student using any unacknowledged content generated by artificial intelligence within a summative assessment as though it is their own work constitutes academic misconduct, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the assessment brief.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unacknowledged_ai_is_misconduct
原始证据
Evidence 1A student using any unacknowledged content generated by artificial intelligence within a summative assessment as though it is their own work constitutes academic misconduct, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the assessment brief.
Teaching
Examiners are not permitted to upload, copy, or share student work with Generative AI tools and Large Language Models. Examiners may not use tools such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Bard, or Microsoft Copilot to analyse student work or provide written feedback. Examiners may use these tools to support their own writing in documenting feedback (e.g. consolidating personal notes and rephrasing comments).
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: examiner_restrictions
原始证据
Evidence 1Examiners across all programmes of study (including Undergraduate, Postgraduate Taught, and Postgraduate Research) are not permitted to upload, copy, or share student work with Generative AI (GenAI) tools and Large Language Models (LLMs). Examiners may not use tools, such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Bard, or Microsoft Copilot, to analyse work submitted by students and provide written feedback. Where preferred, however, examiners may use these tools to support their own writing in the process of documenting feedback (e.g., consolidating personal notes and rephrasing comments).
Privacy
Staff must avoid inputting confidential, sensitive or personal information into GenAI tools unless warranted and only in accordance with guidance. Inputting data into a free or unlicensed GenAI tool could be considered equivalent to putting it into the public domain, signifying a potential personal data breach.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: prohibited_with_exceptions
原始证据
Evidence 1Regardless of the work being undertaken, it is recommended that staff avoid inputting confidential, sensitive or personal information into GenAI tools unless warranted and only in accordance with this guidance.
原始证据
Evidence 2By contrast, inputting data into a free or unlicensed GenAI tool could be considered equivalent to putting it into the public domain – signifying a potential personal data breach.
Procurement
The University's standard licensed GenAI tools are Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google Gemini, and Google NotebookLM. Use of other licensed GenAI tools is not prohibited but must be procured in accordance with applicable procurement policy, including completion of risk assessments such as DPIAs and/or ISRAs. The public, free versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM must not be used for University activities.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: licensed_tools_mandated
原始证据
Evidence 1The University’s standard licensed GenAI tools are Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM, and these are the tools that should be used to process personal data, where necessary, for which the University is responsible.
原始证据
Evidence 2Use of other licenced GenAI tools is not prohibited, but such tools must be procured in accordance with any applicable procurement policy or process, including but not limited to the completion of any requisite risk assessments such as DPIAs and/or ISRAs.
Ai Tool Treatment
All GenAI outputs must be thoroughly evaluated by a human being before they are used. Use of GenAI must be acknowledged if it makes a significant and unrevised contribution to a substantive or impactful piece of work. Staff are responsible for ensuring any use of GenAI is conducted reasonably, lawfully and in conjunction with relevant University policies.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: human_review_required
原始证据
Evidence 1Risk mitigation(s): Ensure that all GenAI outputs are thoroughly evaluated by a human being before they are used. Ensure use of GenAI is acknowledged if it is used to make a significant and unrevised contribution to a substantive or impactful piece of work such as the production of content for formal policies or strategic reports.
原始证据
Evidence 2Ultimately, staff are responsible for ensuring any use of GenAI is conducted reasonably, lawfully and in conjunction with relevant University policies and procedures.
Academic Integrity
Staff should not rely on AI detection software as it is not proven to be accurate or reliable and provides no evidence to support investigations into the use of GenAI.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_detection_not_reliable
原始证据
Evidence 1Not relying on AI detection software as it is not proven to be accurate or reliable and provides no evidence to support investigations into the use of GenAI.
Teaching
The University of Cambridge broadly permits the appropriate use of GenAI tools and related software. Students are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their personal study, research and formative work. Staff are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their own work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: broadly_permitted
原始证据
Evidence 1The University of Cambridge broadly permits the appropriate use of GenAI tools and related software, however, due to the variety of disciplines and research areas present at the institution, there is need for more nuanced guidance at local levels.
原始证据
Evidence 2Students are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their personal study, research and formative work. Appropriate use is better defined locally by Department, Faculty, or College depending on the context and you should always check with a member of staff to be sure you know how you are able to use these tools for your education.
Privacy
Staff must consider the purpose for which data was collected before inputting it into GenAI tools. Data must be collected, held and used for only that purpose. It is not appropriate to use personal data collected for a different purpose with a GenAI tool. Automated decision-making involving GenAI requires human involvement in the decision-making process.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: purpose_limitation
原始证据
Evidence 1Data must be collected, held and used for only that purpose – for example, as part of a governance process – and any use of AI must be compatible with that reason. With some exceptions (e.g. for academic research), it is not appropriate to use personal data that was collected for a different purpose to do something else with a GenAI tool. In such circumstances, it is imperative that a human being is ultimately involved in the decision-making process.
Privacy
Data input into the University's licensed versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM is not used to train those tools. Inputting data into free or unlicensed GenAI tools could result in data being used for training, which may not be a lawful use of personal data.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: licensed_no_training
原始证据
Evidence 1Information input into GenAI tools is also often used to train those tools, which may not be a lawful use of personal data – especially if that data cannot be retrieved or deleted, for example from an AI neural network. Data input into the University’s licensed versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM is not used to train those tools.
Source Status
Cambridge provides an AI Policy Framework for triposes, departments, faculties, and colleges to determine their own local allowance for the use of AI, rather than a single university-wide AI policy. The framework is adapted from a policy proposal by Dr Claire Benn and Dr John Burden from the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: framework_not_centralized_policy
原始证据
Evidence 1Given the wide variety of subjects and teaching and learning styles at the University of Cambridge, it would be difficult to provide a policy that accurately represents the multitude of ambitions, considerations, and feelings surrounding the use of AI in education. We instead will be providing a framework for triposes, departments, faculties, and colleges, to determine their own local allowance and rational for the use of AI within their own contexts.
Security Review
The University's Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) and Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) processes remain the relevant risk assessment processes for GenAI use. The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) continues to apply, including compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions, when using GenAI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: isra_dpia_required
原始证据
Evidence 1In the limited circumstances where a formal risk assessment is required, the University Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) processes remain the relevant risk assessments processes to follow.
原始证据
Evidence 2Please remember the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) continues to apply, including its compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions, when using GenAI tools and staff are reminded of their obligation to abide by its terms.
Teaching
When using GenAI tools, users should: remain aware of privacy and data implications and not share anything personal or sensitive; understand ethical implications as tools often have limited attribution; acknowledge use of GenAI if it makes a significant contribution to substantive work; and take responsibility for ensuring use is conducted reasonably, lawfully, and in conjunction with relevant University policies.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: general_principles
原始证据
Evidence 1Remain aware of the potential privacy and data implications in using tools without due care. Some tools may store or otherwise use information provided to train their language models and you should not share anything personal or sensitive. Acknowledge use of GenAI if it is used to make a significant and unrevised contribution to a substantive or impactful piece of work. Take responsibility for ensuring any use of GenAI is conducted reasonably, lawfully, and in conjunction with relevant University policies and procedures.
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
6 source attribution
AI guidance – Guidance for University of Cambridge Staff on the Administrative Use of Generative AI
information-compliance.admin.cam.ac.uk
AI Policy Framework
blendedlearning.cam.ac.uk
Generative AI and Assessment
blendedlearning.cam.ac.uk
Generative AI and Education
blendedlearning.cam.ac.uk
Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk
Using Generative AI
blendedlearning.cam.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.