Lexington, United States

University of Kentucky

本站使用指南

核实际课程政策。

CELT是教师选择的模板;Copilot访问与研究数据条件分开,正式听证7business days申诉不替换另一网页10日路线。

本站解读;官方证据保留原文。

尚无完整的学生政策摘要;可先查看已收录条款及来源。

适用范围与过渡细节

CELT是教师选择的模板;Copilot访问与研究数据条件分开,正式听证7business days申诉不替换另一网页10日路线。

Check the actual course policy. hero illustration; exact scope and conditions are in the adjacent source-linked text.
请核对所在学院及具体作业的规定。

AI 使用引发疑虑后,会发生什么?

补充资料采集: 2026-10-08 · 现行适用性未独立确认

对比已发布的大学记录 ↗

哪些行为会引发疑虑

AI 明示条款官方指导规范语气: 信息性

本站解读

CELT由教师决定学生GenAI准用程度,可逐项任务规定;本页禁用、条件准用及自由准用是可选模板,非同时全校规则。模板的引用、声明、prompt及百分比只在实际课程采用相应条件时适用。

适用范围: Instructors choosing course policies; students following the policy actually adopted in their course · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

CELT leaves the extent of student GenAI use to instructors, potentially assignment by assignment. The no-use, conditional-use and unrestricted-use statements on this page are examples for adoption, not simultaneous University rules. Citation, acknowledgement, prompts and percentage wording in an example apply only if the actual course adopts that condition.

适用范围: Instructors choosing course policies; students following the policy actually adopted in their course · university

条件与例外

Follow the actual course and assignment policy; these are model statements rather than proof of course adoption.

It is up to the instructor to decide whether student use of generative AI (GenAI) is appropriate for their courses and to what extent. When making that decision, instructors should take into consideration the learning goals of the course, the content, and the extent to which that course can contribute to students' general experience and understanding of AI. For extensive, research-informed recommendations from UK ADVANCE, be sure to visit their website. Instructors might also consider an assignment-by-assignment approach to identifying when generative AI is allowed. Consider using the Student AI Use scale as a possible resource for communicating specifically about what types of AI-augmented actions are appropriate and when at a course level or for each major assignments. Have conversations with students about your policy to offer transparency around disciplinary approaches to AI and to invite them to think critically about AI use.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 46–47
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

Conditional Use In some cases, instructors might want to help students explore GenAI in the context of their course and are, therefore, open to student use of AI in specified instances. CELT refers to these types of policies as “conditional AI use.” The exact policies outlining conditional use of AI vary widely based on learning goals and uses. For instance, instructors may choose to allow student use of AI: for specified assignments only; for specific stages or tasks in preparation for all assignments (i.e. brainstorming, proofreading, etc. but not drafting); or for in-class activities only (not for completing individual or group assignments). Instructors may also specify which GenAI tools students may or may not use. In most cases for assignment use, instructors should provide students with guidance about how to cite and acknowledge their use of AI. For instructors interested in considering possible ways to incorporate AI into their teaching, contact CELT for a consultation. Example 1 - Use for Some Assignments Students will be permitted to use GenAI tools for specific assignments only. When GenAI tools can be used on an assignment it will be explicitly stated in the directions. At times, instructions may also indicate the specific AI tool you can use. The goal of allowing the use of GenAI for these assignments is to make space for critical engagement and practice with these tools. Students must cite any use of GenAI for any part of an assignment (from idea generation to text creation to text editing) using the guidelines from [insert name and link to relevant style guide]. Any use of AI beyond the assignments and tasks the instructor approves will be considered misuse. Also, failure to cite AI materials appropriately will be considered misuse and consequences will follow University policies. Example 2 - Use for In-Class Activities Only Students will be permitted to use Generative AI in this course only for specified tasks as designated by the instructor. Because Generative AI is an influential tool for the future of [insert discipline], it is important that students engage with that tool in thoughtful and inquisitive ways. As a result, there will be some specifically designed in-class activities where students are asked to use [insert GenAI tool name (i.e., ChatGPT, Bing, etc.)] to critically engage with its evolving abilities and restrictions. Please note that while we may use AI for some in-class activities, students may not use GenAI tools for any other assignment submissions. Students who do not wish to sign up for [insert Gen AI tool] for in-class activities will be allowed to pair up with another student who has an account. Students are not required to give credit to AI tools for these activities as all students will be expected to use [insert tool name] in the same ways. Misuse of AI in the context of this course includes submitting AI-generated outputs (in their original form or re-written) as your own work on class assignments. That type of misuse may be considered academic misconduct and consequences will follow University policies. Example 3 - Specific Tasks Only & Acknowledgement In this course you are permitted to use Generative AI for planning, organizing, outlining, brainstorming, and copy-editing your work for any major or minor assignment. However, you are not permitted to use GenAI for composition, writing, or content generation. In other words, the final product that you turn in should be at least 75% [or other %] your work. This course invites students to use Generative AI in augmentative ways to encourage a healthy curiosity and skepticism about the tools and how they work. Students who use AI for their assignments must include the following statement at the end of the document/with references or works cited. “I acknowledge my use of Generative AI in the preparation of this assignment in the form of [insert GenAI tool name]. The [GenAI tool name] was used in the following ways: [List and explain all uses including steps to clarify, fact-check, and cite]. Specifically, the AI-authored contributions to this submission include: [list specific contributions]. I take full responsibility for the accuracy of information informed by the AI tools I used." Students should also include in-text citations of any AI-informed information using guidelines from [insert style guide].
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 65–82
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

AI 明示条款官方指导规范语气: 信息性

本站解读

存档2024年4月UK ADVANCE研究建议要求任何Protected Data输入GenAI前先隐私审查,无论公开工具与否。PHI除UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee确认HIPAA合规及支持PHI外不得输入;其他非公开/专有研究资料未经ITS GRC批准不应进开源AI。后来的Copilot访问公告不自动免这些研究条件。

适用范围: Research, scholarly and creative activity · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

The captured April2024 UK ADVANCE research recommendations require privacy review before any Protected Data enters GenAI, public or otherwise. PHI is barred unless UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee confirms HIPAA compliance and PHI support; other non-public/proprietary research data should not enter open-source AI without UK ITS GRC approval. These research conditions are retained alongside the later Copilot access announcement, not waived by it.

适用范围: Researchers handling protected, health or non-public research data · university

条件与例外

Data privacy review through UK ITS GRC before Protected Data input.

PHI only after UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee confirmation of HIPAA compliance and PHI input support; open-source non-public/proprietary data only with UK ITS GRC approval.

What privacy concerns arise in using generative AI in research? Inputting any research data into a generative AI tool renders that data available in the AI tool and its use. Accordingly, data privacy review is needed before any Protected Data (AR 10.7) is entered into a generative AI tool (whether the tool is publicly available or not) to ensure that the tool’s data privacy and security program complies with all applicable laws and university guidelines. This process can be initiated by contacting the UK Information Technology Services Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) team at GRC@uky.edu. Generative AI tools that are public and available for use by anyone pose elevated risks to privacy when entering research data, in particular protected health information (PHI), personal identifying information or other personal information protected by law such as FERPA, and any proprietary information. Unless the UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee has confirmed the AI tool is HIPAA compliant and supports PHI input, do not put research data containing PHI into a generative AI tool or other software. Additionally, other non-public or proprietary research data should not be placed into an open-source AI tool without UK ITS GRC approval.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 161–178
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

如何回应与说明

AI 明示条款官方指导规范语气: 建议

本站解读

CELT建议即使任务要求AI,也为不愿注册/使用者安排小组等替代;称不应要求学生输入个人/私人资料。禁用教学指导亦提醒AI检测器无效;这是教学指导,非个别检测定案或完整违规证据规则。

适用范围: Instructors designing AI activities and students concerned about registration or privacy · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

CELT recommends alternative arrangements for students who do not wish to register for or use AI even when a task requires it, such as group work or comparing search results. It says students should never be asked to enter personal/private information. Its no-use guidance also cautions that AI detectors are ineffective; this is instructional guidance, not proof that an individual detector flag is correct or an exhaustive misconduct evidence rule.

适用范围: Instructors designing AI activities and students concerned about registration or privacy · university

If use of AI is allowed in the course, the policy should include specific instructions for how to cite and acknowledge that use if required. Explore the recommendations from your discipline's preferred style guide for suggestions. Consider asking students to include "Acknowledgement of Use" statements where appropriate. Recommended language for such statements can be found in the examples below. Alternatives to AI Use Questions about ethics and impact of AI use are still being negotiated and discovered. In addition, questions about data privacy remain unanswered at this time. With that in mind, instructors should make accommodations for students who wish not to register for or use those tools (even when required for an assignment). Some examples of alternatives might include allowing students to work in groups or allowing students to use search engines instead of AI and compare results. Given existing questions about privacy, students should never be asked to input personal or private information into a GenAI tool.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 108–110
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

No Use Instructors may decide that student use of Generative AI is detrimental to their ability to meet course learning objectives and, thus, opt for a “no AI use” policy. In such cases, the syllabus AI policy statement should include a rationale for that choice to encourage student compliance. It should also include a clear indication of what constitutes misuse and what steps will be taken if misuse occurs. Keep in mind, though, that AI detectors have been shown to be ineffective (read more about the limitations of AI detectors in the ADVANCE guidelines).
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 56–57
SHA-256: 45ab8083cef4b02a3672bc1ce62739838e24dfb5d2528dc914f0463bba40dcaf

AI 明示条款正式程序规范语气: 信息性

本站解读

2026年1月29日公告向UK学生、教师及员工提供Copilot许可;myUK的My Account > My Access > Request Access > Copilot申请,linkblue分配可能24–72小时。为访问估计,非违规期限;公告未述个人价格,未测账号,也非评估准用。

适用范围: UK students, faculty and staff requesting the announced Copilot licence · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

The January29,2026 announcement offers Copilot licences to all UK students, faculty and staff. Request it in myUK: My Account > My Access > Request Access > Copilot; assignment to the linkblue account may take24–72 hours. This is an access estimate, not a misconduct deadline. The announcement states no individual price and is not account-tested or assessment permission.

适用范围: UK students, faculty and staff requesting the announced Copilot licence · university

条件与例外

Use institutional myUK request path and linkblue account; actual course policy still controls assessment use.

LEXINGTON, Ky. (Jan. 29, 2026) — Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff, University of Kentucky Information Technology Services announced. The initiative is part of UK’s ongoing commitment to innovation through its Commonwealth AI Transdisciplinary Strategy (CATS AI) in partnership with Microsoft. This expands access to powerful AI tools that support learning, productivity, research and service. Copilot is an AI-powered tool designed to support work and learning, whether it means drafting documents, summarizing information, brainstorming ideas or improving productivity in Microsoft 365. Getting access is simple: Log in to the myUK portal Go to My Account > My Access Select Request Access and choose Copilot Your license will be assigned to your linkblue account. It may take 24-72 hours for the update to appear in your Microsoft tenant. A step-by-step guide is available in the Tech Help Center to help you get started. If you have questions or need support, the Tech Help Center team is ready to assist.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 18–26
SHA-256: e8cec78e8241d442ba195a9f3fc89e5308746ea9d36cdfffc5b4dbd5fc7e4388

AI 明示条款官方指导规范语气: 信息性

本站解读

UK ADVANCE由人类作者承担研究内容准确性,不列GenAI为作者。研究发表应说明工具、用在何处及如何用;期刊规则不同,模型/日期是最佳实践建议。学位论文/综合考试另依学科、部门、College/Graduate School及导师条件。

适用范围: Research reporting and separately theses/dissertations/comprehensive exams · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

UK ADVANCE keeps research-content accuracy with human authors and does not designate GenAI as an author. Reported research should disclose which tool, where and how it was used; journal rules vary, with model/date reporting described as best practice. Thesis/dissertation/comprehensive-exam use additionally depends on disciplinary, departmental, College/Graduate School and adviser conditions.

适用范围: Researchers/authors; graduate students under the relevant thesis or examination rules · university

Who is responsible for content generated by AI? Generative AI cannot be designated authorship as it cannot be held accountable for issues such as research misconduct/plagiarism or intellectual property misuse. Researchers are responsible for the content and accuracy of all aspects of their work. Human authors must take responsibility for the content and the accuracy, factualness, or veracity of the data and analysis presented in the research. Generative AI enables potential use in research but “it does not excuse our judgment or accountability.”2 How should generative AI use be described in reported research results? Journals have different rules for reporting the use of generative AI in manuscripts. Generally, journals, including those by the publishing houses of Taylor and Francis and Springer have stated that input from AI must be detailed in the Materials and Methods section, Acknowledgement section, or similar section for transparency. Any publication of reported results should disclose the use of a generative AI tool, which tool, for what parts of the publication and how it was used. Other best practices include indicating the specific language model in addition to the generative AI tool, as well as the date(s) of use, e.g., “ChatGPT Plus, GPT-4, 19-20 September 2023.”
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 98–116
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

Can generative AI be used for theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams? The use of generative AI in theses, dissertations (and the research underlying them), and comprehensive exams will differ by discipline in what is considered appropriate. Check with your disciplinary authorities, organizations, funding agencies, and publications for a more context- specific understanding of how generative AI may be used in ways that are referenced, disclosed, and/or cited appropriately. Additionally, make sure to consult all requirements, guidelines, and regulations for theses, dissertations, and comprehensive exams (e.g., in the department, college, and Graduate School), as well as the student’s chair or adviser.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 71–79
SHA-256: 28c323248eedac78ceb1238f5be77fb75550ad5c13847836b1fe5c955a155dc2

复核与申诉

来源指导正式程序规范语气: 信息性

本站解读

Due Process — Academic Code此路线用于正式听证决定后;被认定责任者可向Academic Ombud申诉认定、处分或两者,处分决定起7business days,逾期不受理/不审。网页另列零分/课程不及格决定的10日路线但未明起算/日类型,不替换本正式听证时钟。

formal Academic Code hearing appeal · 7 business days(程序定义)

学生 · 采用此程序时须遵守

学生 · 起算:decision determining the sanction

Source unit preserved; no calendar calculation.;Untimely appeals will not be accepted or considered. Separate zero/course-failure route is not this formal-hearing appeal.

适用范围: Respondents appealing formal Academic Code hearing decisions · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.

查看原文与适用条件

英文来源摘要

Due Process — Academic Code applies this appeal route after a formal hearing decision. A responsible respondent may appeal the finding, sanction or both by notice to the Academic Ombud within7 business days of the decision determining the sanction; untimely appeals will not be accepted or considered. The web guide also lists a different10-day route for zero/course-failure determinations but does not define its trigger/day type there; it must not be substituted for this formal-hearing clock.

适用范围: Respondents appealing formal Academic Code hearing decisions · university

条件与例外

Separate Ombud web guide mentions10 unspecified days for zero/course-failure determinations with no trigger definition in the captured page; no date calculation.

These appeal procedures apply whenever a formal hearing has reached a decision for an alleged violation of Academic Code. B. Grounds for Appeal Any respondent who has been found responsible by a hearing panel may appeal either the finding of responsibility, the sanction imposed or both. The University may not appeal. C. The Notice of Appeal A respondent may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the Academic Ombud within seven (7) business days of the decision determining the sanction. The notice must state (a) the grounds of the appeal, and (b) whether the respondent is appealing the finding of responsibility, the sanction imposed or both. Appeals not filed in a timely manner will not be accepted or considered.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 193–210
SHA-256: 11358b7ed07b41e47efe5365f794bde4cea213028969b8b9b2c68b0ef74bd22d

The Academic Appeals Panel hears the following types of appeals: a final grade, dismissal, or different University decision (students have 90 days to contact the Academic Ombud to appeal to the Academic Appeals Panel); an academic offense determination imposing a penalty of zero on the assignment or failure in the course (students have 10 days to contact the Academic to appeal to the Academic Appeals Panel). a decision by the Academic Hearing Panel (students have 7 days to contact the Academic Ombud to appeal the Academic Hearing Panel's decision). Academic Hearing Panel A formal hearing by the Academic Hearing Panel is required: if the penalty to be imposed is harsher than failure in a course. A hearing panel will be convened to review the evidence to determine if an offense occurred, and if so, the proper penalty to be applied. if a student is found responsible by the Academic Hearing Panel, the student may appeal their decision to the Academic Appeals Panel by filing a notice of appeal with the Academic Ombud within seven (7) business days of the Academic Hearing Panel's decision.
查看官方来源 ↗

采集日期: 2026-10-08 · 57–64
SHA-256: 904eb529a432dda7ab6a79c1e96cac7b9733a62c0f84700728808a8bf6113194

采集与版本说明

已发布的来源补充。英文摘要与原语言引文和已审核记录分开展示。这里列出可能的程序与结果,不是使用 AI 的自动处罚;现行适用性尚未独立确认,请核对来源的适用范围和版本。

按所存原文核对;不是官方译文

哈希仅用于核对所存内容,不证明现行有效性或不可篡改。这些主题不表示每个学生都会经历的流程。

AI 工具与获取方式

能获取工具不等于获准在作业中使用。请同时核对任务规则、适用人员和数据限制。

存档工具记录;当前获取方式请核对官方来源。 以下获取说明与证据引用保留原文语言。

  • Microsoft Copilot校方提供/采购许可在来源适用范围内允许
    获取条件与官方原文

    University of Kentucky provides or institutionally supports Microsoft Copilot.

    Use the official university access path.

    No individual price is stated.

    官方来源 1 ↗

    原文引用

    Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff
  • Microsoft Copilot (UK announced licence)校方提供/采购许可附带条件
    获取条件与官方原文

    January2026 announcement offers licences to all students/faculty/staff; assignment may take24–72h, an access estimate. Not assessment permission or an account test.

    myUK > My Account > My Access > Request Access > Copilot; assigned to linkblue account.

    No individual price stated in captured announcement.

    补充来源核对日期:

    官方来源 1 ↗

    原文引用

    LEXINGTON, Ky. (Jan. 29, 2026) — Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff, University of Kentucky Information Technology Services announced. The initiative is part of UK’s ongoing commitment to innovation through its Commonwealth AI Transdisciplinary Strategy (CATS AI) in partnership with Microsoft. This expands access to powerful AI tools that support learning, productivity, research and service. Copilot is an AI-powered tool designed to support work and learning, whether it means drafting documents, summarizing information, brainstorming ideas or improving productivity in Microsoft 365. Getting access is simple: Log in to the myUK portal Go to My
    官方来源 2 ↗

    原文引用

    Account > My Access Select Request Access and choose Copilot Your license will be assigned to your linkblue account. It may take 24-72 hours for the update to appear in your Microsoft tenant. A step-by-step guide is available in the Tech Help Center to help you get started. If you have questions or need support, the Tech Help Center team is ready to assist.

Reviewed record

已审核条款

5 条已审核条款

教学1 条已审核条款

教学

UK ADVANCE provides instructional generative AI guidance that includes creating and clearly communicating course policies, responding to misuse, and designing learning experiences aligned with those policies.

审核: 智能体已审核置信度90%

标准化值: instructional_guidance_course_policy_recommended

原始证据

证据 1
UK ADVANCE provides the following guidance and recommendations: Understanding Capabilities and Risks; Developing Course Policies: Creating and clearly communicating course policies regarding the use of generative AI; Responding to Misuse; Designing Aligned Learning Experiences.

本地化显示 only

UK ADVANCE recommends understanding risks, creating and communicating course AI policies, responding to misuse, and aligning learning experiences.

隐私1 条已审核条款

隐私

UK ADVANCE research guidance says data privacy review is needed before Protected Data is entered into a generative AI tool; it also says not to put PHI into such tools unless UKHC InfoSec has confirmed HIPAA compliance and PHI support, and not to place other non-public or proprietary research data into open-source AI without UK ITS GRC approval.

审核: 智能体已审核置信度93%

标准化值: protected_data_privacy_review_phi_and_nonpublic_research_data_restrictions

原始证据

证据 1
Data privacy review is needed before any Protected Data (AR 10.7) is entered into a generative AI tool. Unless the UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee has confirmed the AI tool is HIPAA compliant and supports PHI input, do not put research data containing PHI into a generative AI tool or other software.

本地化显示 only

UK ADVANCE requires data privacy review before Protected Data enters a generative AI tool and restricts PHI input unless compliance/support is confirmed.

研究1 条已审核条款

研究

UK ADVANCE research guidance says generative AI tools may enhance research when used responsibly, generated content should be verified or validated, generative AI cannot be designated as an author, and researchers remain responsible for content and accuracy.

审核: 智能体已审核置信度91%

标准化值: responsible_research_use_verification_no_ai_authorship_human_accountability

原始证据

证据 1
When using a generative AI tool, it is best practice to verify or validate all generated content using additional factors and reliable resources. Generative AI cannot be designated authorship as it cannot be held accountable.

本地化显示 only

UK ADVANCE advises validating generated research content and does not allow generative AI to be treated as accountable authorship.

AI 工具使用规则2 条已审核条款

Ai Tool Treatment

Microsoft Copilot is listed for University of Kentucky in an official university AI tools source. Derived availability: allowed. Derived endorsement type: institutionally licensed or procured.

审核: 智能体已审核置信度97%

标准化值: {"tool":"microsoft_copilot","rawToolName":"Microsoft Copilot","description":"University of Kentucky provides or institutionally supports Microsoft Copilot.","howToObtain":"Use the official university access path.","costToUser":"No individual price is stated.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"institutionally_licensed_or_procured"}

原始证据

证据 1
Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff

本地化显示 only

Microsoft Copilot licenses are now available to all students, faculty and staff

Ai Tool Treatment

University of Kentucky CELT guidance frames student generative AI use as a course-level instructor decision and recommends communicating allowed uses, tool restrictions, citation or acknowledgement expectations, and alternatives where privacy concerns exist.

审核: 智能体已审核置信度88%

标准化值: course_level_instructor_discretion_with_citation_privacy_guidance

原始证据

证据 1
It is up to the instructor to decide whether student use of generative AI (GenAI) is appropriate for their courses and to what extent. Instructors might also consider an assignment-by-assignment approach to identifying when generative AI is allowed.

本地化显示 only

CELT frames student GenAI use as an instructor decision, including assignment-by-assignment communication of allowed uses.

Source record

官方来源

4 个来源

展开官方来源列表
记录信息、JSON 与引用
审核AI 辅助审核置信度97%快照状态未发布JSON公开 JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "University of Kentucky AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked July 19, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-kentucky

Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.

打开变更日志

Saved from University AI Policy Tracker. This record summarizes the cited sources; it is not an official university statement or assessment permission. Source and review dates are listed above. Hashes identify retained content, not authorization.