Why English? | Reading an Academic Integrity Policy Before Submitting Work

An institution-wide policy may define misconduct while a course guide, assessment sheet or teacher instruction sets the permitted method for one task.

Collect the current policy, assignment, rubric, course announcement and any technology or collaboration guidance. Record issuer, date, version and which document controls the specific assessment.

What to check

• Collect documents
• Check dates
• Map hierarchy
• Save links

Apply this chapter to an individual essay. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: A classmate’s summary or last year’s rule is not authoritative for the current task.

Learning transfer: Document hierarchy supports laboratory and workplace compliance.

Words such as plagiarism, collusion, fabrication, impersonation and unauthorised assistance can sound abstract until connected to what a student actually did.

For every key term, write an example, a non-example and the evidence that distinguishes them. Keep the institution’s wording rather than replacing it with a homemade definition.

What to check

• Quote definition
• Write example
• Write non-example
• Name evidence

Apply this chapter to a group laboratory report. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: An illustrative example does not exhaust every case or overrule the institution’s formal definition.

Learning transfer: Operational definitions support science and law.

A student may use another person’s idea, exact words, data, image, code or structure; each can require different attribution and permission.

Mark notes as quotation, paraphrase, summary, observation, calculation or original inference. Attach the source immediately and preserve page, section, dataset or commit details.

What to check

• Label note type
• Keep source
• Record location
• Distinguish inference

Apply this chapter to a programming assignment. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: Changing a few words does not make another person’s idea or sentence your own.

Learning transfer: Source tracing supports journalism and research.

Collaboration may be encouraged during discussion yet restricted during drafting, calculation, coding or final submission.

Map what may be shared, with whom, at which stage and what acknowledgement is required. When the rule is unclear, ask with a concrete example before exchanging work.

What to check

• Name stage
• Name people
• Name allowed action
• Check acknowledgement

Apply this chapter to an AI-assisted learning task. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: Friendship, group membership or good intentions do not create permission to share assessed answers.

Learning transfer: Boundary mapping supports team projects.

Comments about clarity, logic or errors can support learning, while rewriting whole passages or solving the assessed problem can replace the student’s contribution.

Ask helpers to identify confusion and explain principles. Keep before-and-after versions, decide each revision yourself and disclose assistance when required.

What to check

• Keep ownership
• Request diagnosis
• Make revision
• Record help

Apply this chapter to an individual essay. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: The exact boundary depends on the assessment and policy; fluent editing is not automatically authorised.

Learning transfer: Feedback literacy supports professional review.

Translation, grammar correction, accessibility tools and language models can change wording, meaning or authorship in different ways.

Identify the tool or person, input, output and degree of transformation. Test against course rules and preserve the original when disclosure or review may be needed.

What to check

• Name tool
• Name transformation
• Check permission
• Preserve original

Apply this chapter to a group laboratory report. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: A tool marketed as educational or built into software is not automatically permitted for every assessment.

Learning transfer: Tool governance supports workplace writing.

AI may be prohibited, allowed for limited brainstorming, required for critique or permitted with disclosure; a single yes-or-no assumption is unsafe.

Map permitted uses, prohibited uses, verification duties, citation or acknowledgement, privacy constraints and process evidence. Ask whether the rule applies to ideas, outlines, code, images, editing and final text.

What to check

• Check scope
• Verify output
• Protect data
• Disclose as required

Apply this chapter to a programming assignment. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: AI output can fabricate sources and cannot grant permission or determine whether its own use complies.

Learning transfer: AI literacy supports future work.

Fabrication and falsification concern how evidence is created, selected, changed and reported, not merely whether prose is copied.

Keep raw data, calculation steps, lab notes, code versions and exclusion reasons. Report unexpected results honestly and distinguish correction from concealment.

What to check

• Keep raw record
• Document change
• Explain exclusion
• Report anomaly

Apply this chapter to an AI-assisted learning task. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: A cleaner story is not justification for deleting inconvenient evidence or inventing missing observations.

Learning transfer: Audit trails support science and finance.

Retrofitting references at the end increases the chance of lost sources, unsupported claims and accidental blending of borrowed and original language.

Use a source ledger containing claim, source, location, note type, intended use and access date. Check that each citation supports the exact nearby claim.

What to check

• Link claim
• Check source
• Check location
• Match strength

Apply this chapter to an individual essay. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: A long reference list does not prove that the argument used sources accurately or independently.

Learning transfer: Claim-source alignment supports evidence writing.

A final review should test ownership and transparency, not merely similarity percentage or grammar.

Read each section and ask who produced the idea, evidence, wording, calculation and image; verify permission, attribution, declarations and required appendices.

What to check

• Check ownership
• Check permission
• Check attribution
• Complete declaration

Apply this chapter to a group laboratory report. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: Similarity tools are indicators, not complete judgments about integrity, originality or authorised reuse.

Learning transfer: Preflight checks support publishing.

Silence can turn a small ambiguity into a larger problem, while an accusation or investigation requires calm use of the institution’s process.

Ask a specific question with the task excerpt and proposed action. If contacted later, preserve records, answer truthfully, avoid altering files and use the stated support or review route.

What to check

• Ask concretely
• Keep response
• Preserve evidence
• Use process

Apply this chapter to a programming assignment. Write the purpose, reader, verified facts, uncertainty, boundary and next action before polishing the language.

Create an ordinary case, a difficult case and a missing-information case. Preserve the governing meaning while changing detail, tone and support for the situation.

Ask an independent reader or listener to explain what they understood, what they would do next and where they hesitated. Revise, keep the evidence and compare both versions.

Boundary: This guide cannot determine guilt, sanctions or appeal rights; only the authorised institution can apply its current rules.

Learning transfer: Procedural communication supports public life.

Students do not need professional authority to practise the underlying language. They can learn to define scope, annotate conditions, compare versions, rebuild a timeline, match a number to its unit and explain uncertainty without embarrassment. Parents can ask calm questions: What decision is this document supporting? Which sentence carries the strongest claim? What would make that claim false? Which source would you open next?

Use a three-pass routine. First, map the document: title, owner, audience, date, sections and decision. Second, trace one claim from source to conclusion. Third, explain the limit and next action. This routine strengthens comprehension, science, mathematics, humanities and workplace readiness because it turns English into an evidence tool.

A student should never imitate professional authority. The useful goal is to recognise when a text needs a qualified reviewer, current rule or official decision. Knowing when to pause is part of literacy.

Task

The assignment requires an individual argument using three scholarly sources.

Proposed help

A friend will discuss the topic; a tutor will ask questions about logic; a tool will check spelling.

Policy test

The learner checks each stage against the task and current course guidance.

Evidence

Notes, versions, sources and required declarations are retained.

Question

Any unresolved action is described precisely to the lecturer before use.

Task

What is being assessed.

Rule owner

Institution, course, teacher or assessment.

Action

What the person or tool will do.

Stage

Planning, research, drafting, editing or submission.

Input

What material is shared.

Output

What is returned.

Ownership

Who produced the assessed contribution.

Attribution

What must be cited or acknowledged.

Evidence

What record will be retained.

Clarification

Who can give an authoritative answer.

Use this roadmap to see how the chapters connect. Each decision names a purpose, action, observable example and limit rather than repeating a generic language rule.

1. Identify the complete document set

An institution-wide policy may define misconduct while a course guide, assessment sheet or teacher instruction sets the permitted method for one task. The practical move is to collect the current policy, assignment, rubric, course announcement and any technology or collaboration guidance. Record issuer, date, version and which document controls the specific assessment.

Test the chapter through this example: A general AI guide allows experimentation, but the assignment explicitly prohibits generated text; the task-specific instruction governs the submission. Keep the boundary visible: A classmate’s summary or last year’s rule is not authoritative for the current task.

2. Translate key terms into observable actions

Words such as plagiarism, collusion, fabrication, impersonation and unauthorised assistance can sound abstract until connected to what a student actually did. The practical move is to for every key term, write an example, a non-example and the evidence that distinguishes them. Keep the institution’s wording rather than replacing it with a homemade definition.

Test the chapter through this example: Two students discuss a concept, then write independently with permitted acknowledgement; that differs from exchanging finished answers. Keep the boundary visible: An illustrative example does not exhaust every case or overrule the institution’s formal definition.

3. Separate ideas, wording and evidence

A student may use another person’s idea, exact words, data, image, code or structure; each can require different attribution and permission. The practical move is to mark notes as quotation, paraphrase, summary, observation, calculation or original inference. Attach the source immediately and preserve page, section, dataset or commit details.

Test the chapter through this example: A useful sentence from a report is first stored as a quotation with page number, then paraphrased from understanding and cited. Keep the boundary visible: Changing a few words does not make another person’s idea or sentence your own.

4. Read collaboration rules by task and stage

Collaboration may be encouraged during discussion yet restricted during drafting, calculation, coding or final submission. The practical move is to map what may be shared, with whom, at which stage and what acknowledgement is required. When the rule is unclear, ask with a concrete example before exchanging work.

Test the chapter through this example: Group members may compare research questions but must produce separate analyses; the student keeps discussion notes without sharing prose. Keep the boundary visible: Friendship, group membership or good intentions do not create permission to share assessed answers.

5. Distinguish feedback from authorship transfer

Comments about clarity, logic or errors can support learning, while rewriting whole passages or solving the assessed problem can replace the student’s contribution. The practical move is to ask helpers to identify confusion and explain principles. Keep before-and-after versions, decide each revision yourself and disclose assistance when required.

Test the chapter through this example: A tutor points to an unsupported claim and asks for evidence; the student researches and rewrites rather than accepting replacement prose. Keep the boundary visible: The exact boundary depends on the assessment and policy; fluent editing is not automatically authorised.

6. Check translation and language support carefully

Translation, grammar correction, accessibility tools and language models can change wording, meaning or authorship in different ways. The practical move is to identify the tool or person, input, output and degree of transformation. Test against course rules and preserve the original when disclosure or review may be needed.

Test the chapter through this example: A permitted spellchecker corrects typing, while a prohibited rewrite service generates the argument; both involve language but not the same contribution. Keep the boundary visible: A tool marketed as educational or built into software is not automatically permitted for every assessment.

7. Read generative-AI instructions as a workflow rule

AI may be prohibited, allowed for limited brainstorming, required for critique or permitted with disclosure; a single yes-or-no assumption is unsafe. The practical move is to map permitted uses, prohibited uses, verification duties, citation or acknowledgement, privacy constraints and process evidence. Ask whether the rule applies to ideas, outlines, code, images, editing and final text.

Test the chapter through this example: The task permits AI-generated practice questions but not submitted paragraphs; the learner keeps prompts and verifies every factual lead independently. Keep the boundary visible: AI output can fabricate sources and cannot grant permission or determine whether its own use complies.

8. Protect the integrity of data, results and process

Fabrication and falsification concern how evidence is created, selected, changed and reported, not merely whether prose is copied. The practical move is to keep raw data, calculation steps, lab notes, code versions and exclusion reasons. Report unexpected results honestly and distinguish correction from concealment.

Test the chapter through this example: A graph is corrected after a formula error, with the original file, correction note and new calculation retained. Keep the boundary visible: A cleaner story is not justification for deleting inconvenient evidence or inventing missing observations.

9. Build citations while drafting

Retrofitting references at the end increases the chance of lost sources, unsupported claims and accidental blending of borrowed and original language. The practical move is to use a source ledger containing claim, source, location, note type, intended use and access date. Check that each citation supports the exact nearby claim.

Test the chapter through this example: The student removes a citation that discusses association when the sentence claims causation, then narrows the wording. Keep the boundary visible: A long reference list does not prove that the argument used sources accurately or independently.

10. Run a pre-submission authorship and disclosure check

A final review should test ownership and transparency, not merely similarity percentage or grammar. The practical move is to read each section and ask who produced the idea, evidence, wording, calculation and image; verify permission, attribution, declarations and required appendices.

Test the chapter through this example: The learner adds the required AI-use statement and collaborator acknowledgement before submitting, while correcting one missing image credit. Keep the boundary visible: Similarity tools are indicators, not complete judgments about integrity, originality or authorised reuse.

11. Ask early and respond responsibly if a concern arises

Silence can turn a small ambiguity into a larger problem, while an accusation or investigation requires calm use of the institution’s process. The practical move is to ask a specific question with the task excerpt and proposed action. If contacted later, preserve records, answer truthfully, avoid altering files and use the stated support or review route.

Test the chapter through this example: The student asks whether a code assistant may explain an error without generating the assessed solution and keeps the written answer. Keep the boundary visible: This guide cannot determine guilt, sanctions or appeal rights; only the authorised institution can apply its current rules.

The completed route should let another person reconstruct what the communication is for, what evidence supports it, what remains uncertain and what happens next.

Each case asks the learner to compare a quick response with a version another person can actually use.

Case 1: Identify the complete document set

Start with the worked situation: A general AI guide allows experimentation, but the assignment explicitly prohibits generated text; the task-specific instruction governs the submission. Write the most tempting shortcut, then mark the missing reader or listener need, condition, source, authority or next action.

Repair the communication by applying this method: Collect the current policy, assignment, rubric, course announcement and any technology or collaboration guidance. Record issuer, date, version and which document controls the specific assessment. Finish by stating why this boundary still matters: A classmate’s summary or last year’s rule is not authoritative for the current task.

Case 2: Read collaboration rules by task and stage

Start with the worked situation: Group members may compare research questions but must produce separate analyses; the student keeps discussion notes without sharing prose. Write the most tempting shortcut, then mark the missing reader or listener need, condition, source, authority or next action.

Repair the communication by applying this method: Map what may be shared, with whom, at which stage and what acknowledgement is required. When the rule is unclear, ask with a concrete example before exchanging work. Finish by stating why this boundary still matters: Friendship, group membership or good intentions do not create permission to share assessed answers.

Case 3: Read generative-AI instructions as a workflow rule

Start with the worked situation: The task permits AI-generated practice questions but not submitted paragraphs; the learner keeps prompts and verifies every factual lead independently. Write the most tempting shortcut, then mark the missing reader or listener need, condition, source, authority or next action.

Repair the communication by applying this method: Map permitted uses, prohibited uses, verification duties, citation or acknowledgement, privacy constraints and process evidence. Ask whether the rule applies to ideas, outlines, code, images, editing and final text. Finish by stating why this boundary still matters: AI output can fabricate sources and cannot grant permission or determine whether its own use complies.

Case 4: Run a pre-submission authorship and disclosure check

Start with the worked situation: The learner adds the required AI-use statement and collaborator acknowledgement before submitting, while correcting one missing image credit. Write the most tempting shortcut, then mark the missing reader or listener need, condition, source, authority or next action.

Repair the communication by applying this method: Read each section and ask who produced the idea, evidence, wording, calculation and image; verify permission, attribution, declarations and required appendices. Finish by stating why this boundary still matters: Similarity tools are indicators, not complete judgments about integrity, originality or authorised reuse.

A parent, tutor, teacher or colleague can ask questions, but the learner should make the final revision in their own words and keep evidence of what changed.

Clear English is reliable when the reader can see not only what the sentence says, but also where it stops.

Boundary 1: Separate ideas, wording and evidence

A student may use another person’s idea, exact words, data, image, code or structure; each can require different attribution and permission. Before treating the wording as complete, identify an exception, missing fact, reader who may need another route and change that would force revision.

Apply the observable signal—A useful sentence from a report is first stored as a quotation with page number, then paraphrased from understanding and cited.—and underline the exact words carrying scope, time, permission, comparison or uncertainty. Changing a few words does not make another person’s idea or sentence your own.

Boundary 2: Check translation and language support carefully

Translation, grammar correction, accessibility tools and language models can change wording, meaning or authorship in different ways. Before treating the wording as complete, identify an exception, missing fact, reader who may need another route and change that would force revision.

Apply the observable signal—A permitted spellchecker corrects typing, while a prohibited rewrite service generates the argument; both involve language but not the same contribution.—and underline the exact words carrying scope, time, permission, comparison or uncertainty. A tool marketed as educational or built into software is not automatically permitted for every assessment.

Boundary 3: Build citations while drafting

Retrofitting references at the end increases the chance of lost sources, unsupported claims and accidental blending of borrowed and original language. Before treating the wording as complete, identify an exception, missing fact, reader who may need another route and change that would force revision.

Apply the observable signal—The student removes a citation that discusses association when the sentence claims causation, then narrows the wording.—and underline the exact words carrying scope, time, permission, comparison or uncertainty. A long reference list does not prove that the argument used sources accurately or independently.

Boundary 4: Ask early and respond responsibly if a concern arises

Silence can turn a small ambiguity into a larger problem, while an accusation or investigation requires calm use of the institution’s process. Before treating the wording as complete, identify an exception, missing fact, reader who may need another route and change that would force revision.

Apply the observable signal—The student asks whether a code assistant may explain an error without generating the assessed solution and keeps the written answer.—and underline the exact words carrying scope, time, permission, comparison or uncertainty. This guide cannot determine guilt, sanctions or appeal rights; only the authorised institution can apply its current rules.

A bounded statement is useful because a reader can test it, ask a focused question and act without treating confidence as proof.

Audience adaptation changes emphasis, vocabulary and next steps; it does not authorise a different truth.

Learner

An institution-wide policy may define misconduct while a course guide, assessment sheet or teacher instruction sets the permitted method for one task. This person may need a different level of detail or next action.

Preserve collect documents, check dates, map hierarchy, save links while adapting examples and support. Do not change the underlying fact, decision or limit simply to make the short version easier.

Teacher or adviser

A student may use another person’s idea, exact words, data, image, code or structure; each can require different attribution and permission. This person may need a different level of detail or next action.

Preserve label note type, keep source, record location, distinguish inference while adapting examples and support. Do not change the underlying fact, decision or limit simply to make the short version easier.

Parent or colleague

Comments about clarity, logic or errors can support learning, while rewriting whole passages or solving the assessed problem can replace the student’s contribution. This person may need a different level of detail or next action.

Preserve keep ownership, request diagnosis, make revision, record help while adapting examples and support. Do not change the underlying fact, decision or limit simply to make the short version easier.

Authorised reviewer

AI may be prohibited, allowed for limited brainstorming, required for critique or permitted with disclosure; a single yes-or-no assumption is unsafe. This person may need a different level of detail or next action.

Preserve check scope, verify output, protect data, disclose as required while adapting examples and support. Do not change the underlying fact, decision or limit simply to make the short version easier.

Future reader

Retrofitting references at the end increases the chance of lost sources, unsupported claims and accidental blending of borrowed and original language. This person may need a different level of detail or next action.

Preserve link claim, check source, check location, match strength while adapting examples and support. Do not change the underlying fact, decision or limit simply to make the short version easier.

Successful transfer preserves identity, source, status, uncertainty, boundary and responsible action while making the route easier for this reader to follow.

A polished paragraph or fluent conversation can still conceal an unclear purpose, missing condition, invisible assumption or stale source.

Purpose test

State in one sentence what the other person should understand, decide or do. Delete a detail only if its removal does not change that outcome or a necessary boundary.

Write the expected interpretation, the reader’s or listener’s actual interpretation, the difference and one precise revision. Keep the earlier version so the learning remains visible.

Condition test

Circle words such as if, unless, before, after, may, must and only. Add the missing role, date, version or exception beside each one.

Write the expected interpretation, the reader’s or listener’s actual interpretation, the difference and one precise revision. Keep the earlier version so the learning remains visible.

Independent-person test

Give the communication to someone who was not present. Ask what they think is true, what is still unknown and what action they would take next.

Write the expected interpretation, the reader’s or listener’s actual interpretation, the difference and one precise revision. Keep the earlier version so the learning remains visible.

Change test

Imagine that a deadline, interface, source, role or policy changes tomorrow. Mark every sentence needing review and name who will update it.

Write the expected interpretation, the reader’s or listener’s actual interpretation, the difference and one precise revision. Keep the earlier version so the learning remains visible.

Close reading is practical care: it keeps language from outrunning the audience, evidence or authority behind it.

Answer each prompt in a complete sentence tied to the current task, source, reader or authorised clarification. Write “unknown” when the available information does not support an answer.

1. Collect documents? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
2. Check dates? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
3. Map hierarchy? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
4. Save links? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
5. Quote definition? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
6. Write example? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
7. Write non-example? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
8. Name evidence? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
9. Label note type? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
10. Keep source? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
11. Record location? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.
12. Distinguish inference? State the evidence, limit and narrow next action it supports.

Read or rehearse it aloud

Listen for sentences that postpone the answer, hide the actor, overload one step or imply certainty the source does not provide. Revise for meaning before tone.

Ask a real reader or listener

Invite a learner, parent, colleague or mentor to identify the purpose, strongest claim, important condition and next action. Treat hesitation as useful evidence.

Keep a small revision note

Record the source, date, change and reason. A short history helps the next writer avoid restoring an earlier ambiguity.

Is collaboration always misconduct?

No. It may be required, permitted or restricted depending on the task. Read the current instructions and distinguish discussion from producing assessed work.

Does a low similarity score prove originality?

No. Similarity software cannot by itself establish authorship, proper attribution, fabrication or permitted assistance.

Can a tutor edit my assignment?

Only within the assessment’s rules. Ask for diagnosis and feedback while keeping the intellectual and written work yours, and disclose help when required.

Must AI use be declared?

Follow the current institution, course and task instructions; requirements differ and may cover prompts, outputs or methods.

What if two documents appear to conflict?

Keep both, identify the precise conflict and ask the responsible teacher or office in writing before acting.

What if I am accused of misconduct?

Preserve records, read the official notice, answer truthfully and use the institution’s stated support, response and review process.

• NUS Office of Student Conduct: Administrative Policies
• NUS Code of Student Conduct
• NUS Office of Student Conduct: Educational Resources
• Why English? Reading a Rubric Before Starting an Assignment
• Why English? Preparing for a Library Research Consultation

Cycle-sensitive facts were checked against current official pages on 14 October 2026. Always reopen the authority’s live page before a real decision.