{"resourceId":"liverpool-four-tier-ai-assessment-framework-student-guidance-20261103","versions":[{"version":"external-328245c513c676e3fb542cf74ea610a2db0f3cb82b86a566f10dda23a7628a8b","resource":{"id":"liverpool-four-tier-ai-assessment-framework-student-guidance-20261103","title":"University of Liverpool explains its four-tier AI assessment framework to students, from no AI (Tier 1) to required responsible AI use (Tier 4), shown in Canvas","organization":"University of Liverpool","sector":"Higher education assessment and academic integrity","geography":"United Kingdom (Liverpool)","publishedAt":"University of Liverpool Student News, 3 November 2026","publicationDate":"2026-11-03","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"University of Liverpool News","sourceLabel":"Institutional guidance (university news)","sourceUrl":"https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2026/11/03/using-ai-in-your-assessments/","evidenceClass":"standards-guidance","outcomeClass":"emerging","topics":["governance-procurement","knowledge-work","data-security"],"finding":"On 3 November 2026 the University of Liverpool published student guidance on the AI policy it introduced in August. Every assessment is placed in one of four tiers displayed in Canvas: Tier 1 bans all AI including grammar checkers unless an approved student support plan requires it; Tier 2 allows limited contextual support with declared use; Tier 3 has students critique and revise AI drafts with citation; Tier 4 requires responsible AI use. Programmes use a mix, with relatively few requiring AI. All taught students get secure Microsoft Copilot and nebulaONE, a gateway to approved LLMs. Fabricated references or data, deepfakes, false authorship and uploading personal or sensitive data are prohibited in every tier, and professional regulators may impose stricter rules.","sledRelevance":"A concrete, student-facing model for course-level AI permission that U.S. student-success and academic-integrity offices can compare with their own syllabus-by-syllabus approaches.","evidence":"Primary institutional guidance; describes policy, platforms and tier definitions; no evaluation data.","architectureImplications":"Tier labels are surfaced in the LMS (Canvas); students use institution-provided Copilot and a secure model gateway (nebulaONE) for AI-required assessments.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: a shared tier vocabulary gives students one rule set across modules, with disability support plans and professional regulators as explicit exceptions.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Uploading personal, confidential or sensitive data to AI is prohibited in all tiers; approved tools are routed through a secure gateway.","caveats":"UK institution; transferability to U.S. institutions depends on local honor codes and accreditation; no outcome or compliance data.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: institutions need one clear rule set for student AI use across courses. Liverpool now labels every assessment with one of four AI tiers in Canvas and gives all taught students secure Copilot and an approved-model gateway. A credible conversation is about helping a U.S. institution design a similar tier taxonomy and the tooling behind it. A bounded offer is a policy-to-LMS implementation sprint. Do not claim tiers reduce misconduct or improve outcomes; Liverpool has published no such data.","engineering":"Engineering framing: the model depends on LMS metadata showing each assessment's tier and on a secure gateway to approved large language models. Fit requires identity integration, logging policy and data-loss controls, because uploading sensitive data is prohibited in every tier. Prerequisites include an approved-model list and declaration templates. Constraints include professional regulators that may impose stricter rules. Proof of value should check that tier labels are present on every assessment and that gateway usage aligns with AI-required assessments.","delivery":"Delivery framing: the operating owner is the academic quality or teaching office, with module leaders assigning tiers. Work includes tier assignment guidance, LMS configuration, student tutorials and library declaration guidance. Acceptance should rest on coverage of tier labels and student understanding measured by survey. Risks are inconsistent tier assignment across modules, confusion where regulators set stricter rules, and students with support plans being wrongly refused assistive tools in Tier 1."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Students face inconsistent, course-by-course AI rules and unequal access to AI tools.","stakeholders":["Provost or academic quality office","Academic integrity office","Disability services","Library","Central IT"],"discoveryQuestions":["How do students learn the AI rules for each assessment today?","Do all students have access to approved AI tools?","How are disability accommodations handled when AI is banned?"],"valueHypothesis":"Interpretation: a shared tier taxonomy shown in the LMS may reduce student confusion about permitted AI use.","potentialEngagement":"A sprint to design an assessment AI tier taxonomy and surface it in the LMS.","unsupportedClaims":["Tiers reduce academic misconduct","Tiers improve learning outcomes","Students comply with declarations"]},"engineering":{"fit":"LMS assessment metadata plus a secure approved-model gateway.","architectureIntegration":"Tier label shown in Canvas per assessment; institution Copilot and nebulaONE gateway for AI-required work.","prerequisites":["Approved-model list","Identity integration for the gateway","Declaration and citation templates"],"constraints":["Professional regulators may set stricter rules","Assistive-tool exceptions under support plans","Non-UK legal context differs"],"security":"Prohibit sensitive-data uploads; route approved AI through a gateway with logging and data controls.","proofOfValue":["Share of assessments with a tier label","Gateway usage on AI-required assessments","Student survey on rule clarity"]},"delivery":{"work":"Assign tiers to assessments, configure LMS labels and train students and staff.","dependencies":["Approved AI policy","LMS configuration","Library declaration guidance"],"ownership":"Academic quality or teaching and learning office.","skillsAdoption":"Module leaders need guidance on choosing tiers; students need tutorials on declaring AI use.","governanceCheckpoints":["Policy approval","Accessibility review of Tier 1 exceptions","Regulator alignment for professional programmes"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: tier label on all assessments","Proposed: student rule-clarity survey above an agreed threshold","Proposed: documented support-plan exception process"],"risks":["Inconsistent tier assignment","Accommodation conflicts","Over-reliance on declarations"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-11-04T04:19:02Z","enrichedAt":"2026-11-04T04:21:37Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Tier 1 explicitly preserves assistive tools required under approved student support plans.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: providing approved AI to all taught students reduces inequity from paid consumer tools but requires licensing and gateway contracts.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: module leaders assign tiers; the library supplies declaration guidance; tutors are the first point of contact for questions.","peerReview":"unknown","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2026/11/03/using-ai-in-your-assessments/","referenceExcerpt":"No AI use is allowed in Tier 1 assessments, including basic tools such as grammar checkers, unless required under an approved student support plan.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}