A university saying that it supports responsible use of generative AI does not tell a student whether a particular tool may be used for a particular submitted task. Permission needs to be read at the level of the assessment instructions and the activity being performed. An acknowledgement records use; it does not create permission that was absent.

UCL's student guidance connects acceptable use to assessment guidance, transparency and clarification from teaching staff. At the time checked, the page also says assessment categories are under review during 2026/27. This is one institution's current guidance, not a universal policy or a promise about future categories. The worksheet below remains useful because it records actual instructions instead of relying on a category label alone.

Break “using AI” into concrete actions

The following is a fictional assessment, not a UCL assignment. Imagine that its written brief permits brainstorming and spelling checks, prohibits generated submitted prose and code, and requires an acknowledgement of permitted assistance. The student wants to use a tool in several different ways.

Proposed action Fictional brief's position Next step
Generate questions to consider Brainstorming permitted Develop and verify ideas independently
Check spelling in the student's draft Permitted within stated scope Avoid unapproved rewriting
Generate a paragraph for submission Prohibited Write the paragraph independently
Generate code for the assessed analysis Prohibited Produce the assessed code independently
Upload confidential research material Not addressed by this brief Seek data-handling guidance before uploading

The table makes an important distinction: the same tool can support both a permitted action and a prohibited one. A subscription, institutional login or demonstration in a lecture does not resolve that difference. Access describes what can be opened; the assessment brief describes what can be used for the assessed work.

Separate permission, evidence and disclosure

For each permitted action, record the instruction relied upon, its date and the assessment it covers. Save the brief and any clarification received through the course's official channel. A rule for one module or last year's assignment should not be silently carried into another.

Then keep enough process evidence to explain what was done: your own notes, relevant drafts, calculations and source checks. This is useful for demonstrating learning and correcting mistakes, not a guarantee about how an institution will resolve any concern. Do not fabricate process logs after the event.

Finally, follow the required acknowledgement method. If no method is clear, ask the teaching team what information they need. A disclosure might need to distinguish idea generation from editing or code assistance. A generic statement that “AI was used” may conceal the exact activity the instructions ask students to identify.

Verify outputs without treating verification as permission

Suppose a permitted brainstorming tool suggests an argument supported by a journal article. Locate and read the real source before relying on it. If the article cannot be found, the generated reference is not evidence. If it exists but does not support the argument, correct the claim rather than preserving the generated wording.

Likewise, a mathematically correct generated solution can still fall outside the permitted assistance for a task assessing independent problem-solving. Verification asks whether an output is correct. Permission asks whether that assistance was allowed. Both questions need answers.

When instructions conflict or remain ambiguous, ask a precise question before proceeding: name the task, proposed activity and tool function, then quote the relevant brief section in the enquiry. Do not ask only whether “AI is allowed” when the real uncertainty concerns a specific stage of the work.

Use the assessment mix guide to understand what the course assesses overall. For an individual submission, retain a small permission matrix and complete your own reasoning. That gives the student a practical way to follow changing guidance while keeping authorship, evidence quality and disclosure visible throughout the assignment.