K–12

Undated updates may lag operations. Community perceptions are not measured benefits; response selection and the middle-school denominator are unclear. No causal learning, workload or security evaluation.

Repository is largely preprints and uses restricted keywords. Report states an October 2025 snapshot but cites later-dated work; exact cutoff coverage remains unresolved. It excludes pre-LLM tutoring by definition. Google.org is among disclosed funders. Included original trials were not all reopened, so no individual effect sizes are republished here.

Normative international guidance, not a school trial, security certification or statement of current U.S. law. The related policy brief uses a May 15, 2026 regulatory cutoff. No claim that all instructional assistants are social companions.

The visible dates apply to the manual and do not establish when this section changed. UK obligations must not be restated as U.S. law. No effect size, baseline or evaluation sample is supplied.

Prompts and source materials were unavailable; labels were imbalanced. The exploratory human reliability threshold was .6, with an exception for facts/opinions. No classroom intervention or durable-learning effect was tested.

Limited developing research base; illustrative parent anecdotes are fictional. Funded by Charter School Growth Fund and Walton Family Foundation. Findings do not establish representative prevalence or improved learning.

Document mixes implementation descriptions and aspirational benefits. Status of each initiative needs current confirmation; exact publication day is unknown. No evaluated baseline, sample or error rates are supplied.

Addendum C records unfinished ISO 42001 assessment and specific Speaker Coach/Progress exceptions. District protection is not automatic or a universal legal guarantee. Exact PDF publication date is unconfirmed.

Program-authored promotional evidence, classified conservatively as vendor-claim to distinguish operator claims from evaluated outcomes. No measured learning, comparison baseline, cost or accessibility results. This is education about AI, not evidence for replacing teachers with AI.

Digital Promise participated with the supplier; this is not an independent product-effectiveness evaluation. The linked fuller report was inaccessible, so coding methods, sampling and detailed results could not be checked. No workload baseline or retained-learning outcome is available.

District self-description; future milestones are not completed outcomes. Exact publication day and meeting dates are unknown; linked presentations were not used as evidence.

Planning evidence from one district; no causal or independent evaluation. Page publication date is unknown. Linked meeting materials were not used to substantiate additional claims.

Public disclosures cannot reveal all internal evidence. Non-exhaustive scan, not product ratings or proof of learning benefit or harm.

Purposive, nonrepresentative sample; technology leaders predominate. Cross-year samples differ. Reported workload benefits are not independently measured. PDF text, methods and limitations were inspected; one table screenshot failed, so no table-derived category percentages are used.

Training preceded the reported increase but causation is untested. Targets and status fields must not be read as completed work. Exact publication and event days are unavailable.

This is expert guidance, not a quantified meta-analysis in the public summary and not evidence that every AI or EdTech product harms learning. The public materials do not enumerate the number of studies reviewed or estimate effect sizes. Individual tools and pedagogical designs may produce different results, so the recommendations should guide evaluation rather than substitute for it.

This is attributed reporting, not a directly inspected policy instrument or technical audit. The district meeting transcript could not be opened. Exceptions, enforcement completeness and educational effects remain unverified.

This is a supplier announcement and commitment, not an independent evaluation. The $1 billion figure represents targeted subsidized access rather than audited public spending or realized benefit. Prior operational claims lack published methods, and the MS-ISAC pilot has not yet reported enrollment, measured outcomes, failures, or long-term cost.

The policy was announced before implementation and supplies no outcome data. The city's characterization of its review as exhaustive is not independently verified, the named pilots are not evaluated in the announcement, and a one-year moratorium could delay beneficial uses as well as risky ones. Accessibility exceptions require careful implementation to avoid unequal access or stigma.

The policy is voluntary guidance and not legal advice. OSSE has not reported adoption, compliance, incident, equity, accessibility, or outcome data, and the release does not govern student use or establish a complete AI procurement standard.

The synthesis is limited to art and design education and combines experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational evidence. The public abstract does not expose all heterogeneity and study-quality statistics, effects were smaller for K-12 students than graduate students, and a moderate average effect does not predict results for a particular curriculum or tool.

This is a content analysis of policy documents, not an evaluation of compliance or AI outcomes. The accessible abstract provides only high-level findings, policy documents vary greatly in length and authority, and coding judgments may not capture informal practices outside published guidance.

The trial covered Year 7 and 8 science planning, not student use or learning outcomes; schools slightly overrepresented London, the South East, and highly rated providers, and frequency of tool use declined during the trial.

This was a follow-up of three prior recommendations rather than a full new audit of every city AI system. Testing included OTI and a judgmentally selected Department of Buildings review, and the report evaluates governance implementation rather than the effectiveness or fairness of individual AI tools.

CRPE is a participating organizer. Aspirations about privacy and better decisions are not independently verified safeguards or benefits. Grant maximum is not total cost.

Practice guidance, not product certification or a new causal evaluation. Provider interview contributions are disclosed. One link attached to a two-trial claim opened a different UK study; this edition does not repeat that numerical claim.

DIR's update is self-reported government implementation evidence. Participation counts do not demonstrate safer systems, improved services, workforce productivity, or public value, and the long-term effect of the framework remains unmeasured.

Effects of teacher intervention were not isolated from system and classroom design. Coverage is uneven by age, subject and region. Only six studies concerned generative AI/chatbots; findings cannot establish autonomous-agent effectiveness. Separate Table 2 retrieval failed; study distributions and limitations were readable in the main article.

Same users can encounter multiple conditions. LLM judges are imperfect; offline tests are single-turn. Moderation and bias evaluation are outside scope. The paper does not establish delayed learning or district-wide savings.

The paper is a working paper rather than a peer-reviewed journal article; it covers one private-school network, one semester, and one custom tool. Subgroup effects and proposed mechanisms need replication.