Leeds 2026/27 Policy on Paid Services vs Software: What the Rules Actually Say

The University of Leeds Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy (v1.0, introduced for the 2026/27 academic year) explicitly bans using "paid services" to prepare work for assessment, while setting out a separate definition for "technologies" (which includes digital tools that are paid, unpaid, or provided by the university). However, the policy text does not settle whether a paid commercial software subscription or rewriting tool counts as a "paid service" (defined as an external person and/or company paid for by the student) or as a "technology." Which of those categories a paid tool falls into is for Leeds and your module team to decide, not external commentators. What is allowed depends on your institution's regulations and your specific module assessment brief, which retains full authority to set stricter rules.

Students enrolled at Leeds for 2026/27 who come across the sentence "Students are not permitted to use paid services to prepare work for assessment" often ask whether subscribing to a commercial writing assistant, translation aid, or paraphrasing tool immediately falls under that ban.

The policy places two definitions side by side on the same page, but does not resolve the boundary between an external company paid for by a student and a paid digital technology. Furthermore, while the policy normally permits technology use where brief restrictions are absent, tools may only be used in a supportive capacity and cannot replace a student's own learning, understanding, or authorial responsibility, while submitting work manipulated to avoid detection breaches university misconduct rules. Below is a side-by-side examination of both definitions verbatim, why the policy leaves the classification open, and how to ask your module leader a precise question before submitting assessed work.

The baseline framework for assessment conduct at Leeds is set out in the Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy. The policy was formally approved by Senate on 8 July 2026 for implementation beginning in the 2026/27 academic year, designated as Version 1.0 under the ownership of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Team.

Within this document, the university establishes an unambiguous ban on paid services, followed immediately by a single institutional exception:

"Students are not permitted to use paid services to prepare work for assessment."

The text continues:

"Disabled students may be able to access paid services and assistive technologies if recommended by Disability Services."

To interpret what "paid services" encompasses, students must look at the definitions section of the same policy page, where the university sets out two adjacent terms side by side:

1. Paid Services: > "Paid services are defined for the purposes of this policy as an external person and/or company paid for by the student."
2. Technologies: > "Technologies are defined for the purposes of this policy as digital tools, including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and translation aids, that are paid, unpaid or provided by the University."

Both definitions co-exist verbatim on the very same policy page. This creates an immediate tension when applied to commercial software subscriptions. On one hand, a paid software application is provided by a commercial corporate entity that the student pays, which fits the literal phrasing of "an external person and/or company paid for by the student." On the other hand, it is a digital tool, and the definition of "technologies" explicitly contemplates tools "that are paid, unpaid or provided by the University."

The policy text itself does not resolve this overlap. As explored in our guide on whether a rewriting tool counts as third-party editing, "Which of those a paid rewriting tool is, Leeds decides, not us." Outside observers or tool providers cannot declare that a commercial subscription is safely classified as a "technology" rather than a "paid service." Because the written policy does not settle the issue, students cannot assume a commercial software subscription is automatically classified under "technologies" rather than "paid services", nor can they assume it is universally classified as contract cheating. What is allowed depends on how your institution and module team apply these rules to specific tools.

Where software falls under the "technologies" category, the Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy is "premised on the principle that the use of assistance will normally be permitted," stating verbatim:

"Students are permitted to use technologies to prepare work for assessment if restrictions are not specified within the assessment brief."

However, this baseline permission is strictly conditioned:

"Technologies may be used in a supportive capacity but will not replace a student’s own learning, understanding and skills."

The policy also outlines personal authorship and drafting responsibilities:

"Students will be responsible for the process of drafting and refining the work submitted for assessment, including generating content, revising, editing and proofreading."

At the same time, the policy explicitly permits technological assistance with proofreading:

"Students may use peer assistance, informal assistance and technologies for support with proofreading."

It defines proofreading as:

"the systematic checking and identification of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence construction, formatting and layout in the text."

The policy also specifies an institutional verification mechanism:

"Students may be asked to demonstrate authorship to confirm the authenticity of their work."

Where the boundary falls between permitted technological support with proofreading and replacing a student's own learning, understanding, or authorship is not decided by third-party tool claims. That determination rests with Leeds and individual module teams through their assessment briefs.

Second, the University's staff guidance on artificial intelligence quotes the formal disciplinary threshold defined under university regulations as Clause 8.7 Grievous Academic Misconduct:

"Students shall not intentionally or otherwise submit work in whole or in part that is stolen, obtained by deceit or fraud, obtained from a commercial or non-commercial source, including online, requested or commissioned from a third party, or where the content has been manipulated to avoid detection."

The guidance explicitly notes:

"This category may include the use of artificial intelligence to generate work."

Clause 8.7 introduces three critical tests that apply directly to commercial software:

• Obtained from a commercial source: Submitting content generated directly by a third-party commercial platform—paid or free—can be classified as work obtained from a commercial source.
• Content manipulated to avoid detection: Clause 8.7 explicitly prohibits submitting work "where the content has been manipulated to avoid detection." If software is used with the intent to evade detection systems or obscure non-original text, that conduct directly breaches this clause. What forms of rewriting or editing are allowed depends on institutional policy and individual assessment briefs, not marketing claims.
• Strict liability wording: The clause explicitly covers actions committed "intentionally or otherwise," meaning the regulation applies whether an infraction was intentional or unintentional.

Therefore, software is never exempt from integrity oversight simply because it is digital. Using any tool to replace student drafting, bypass personal authorship, or manipulate content to evade detection runs afoul of Leeds's regulations. What assistance is permissible remains governed by institutional policy and individual assessment briefs.

Understanding Leeds's 2026/27 rules also requires noting what changed from prior academic years.

Previously, the University of Leeds operated a widely referenced three-tiered traffic light system for AI usage. As of the 2026/27 academic year, that system has been formally decommissioned. The university's central generative AI guidance page states:

"The Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy replaced the three-tiered traffic light system from the start of the academic year 2026/27."

Under Version 1.0 of the new policy, the university delegates operational boundaries to the assignment level: the module assessment brief dictates the precise extent of permitted technology use.

The baseline definition of "technologies" does not override module-specific restrictions. An individual assessment brief can impose stricter rules than the general policy:

• A module leader can designate an assessment as allowing no generative artificial intelligence or automated paraphrasing tools whatsoever.
• A brief may allow basic spellcheck and institutionally provided grammar tools, but prohibit external generative rewriting.
• A brief may permit specific generative tools only for exploratory background research, while requiring formal documentation and complete student drafting.

In addition, the university's institutional position on detection tools reflects caution rather than automated policing. The student policy references the Turnitin tutorial, which explains how Turnitin functions in assessment and explicitly addresses "why students should not use AI detector or plagiarism detector websites."

Similarly, the university's staff guidance instructs educators not to run student work through online AI detectors:

"If you suspect that material presented to you, for any purpose, has been wholly or partially generated using AI, you should not use an online AI detection tool. This is because (i) currently these tools are insufficiently accurate for the University to use them as evidence, (ii) submission of the work to such tools may represent a data security breach, (iii) the document being checked becomes available as training data for other AI tools."

Because Leeds instructs staff that external detectors cannot serve as evidence, staff guidance notes that the university has formal processes for considering possible breaches, and the policy establishes that students may be asked to demonstrate authorship to confirm the authenticity of their work.

Because the assessment brief governs the permitted use of digital tools for each specific task, asking your module leader or teaching team for clarification before submitting is far safer than guessing.

However, asking vague questions such as "Can I use AI?" or "Is software allowed?" frequently yields unhelpful or overly broad warnings. To receive an actionable, binding answer, formulate your inquiry with precision around Leeds's specific regulatory framework:

1. Specify the exact tool, platform tier, and intended function: Identify the specific program you want to use and describe the precise mechanism. Distinguish proofreading support (defined by Leeds as the systematic checking and identification of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence construction, formatting and layout) from generative drafting or automated paragraph generation.
2. Reference the policy definitions and the module brief: Note that while Version 1.0 of the Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy sets out definitions for both "paid services" and "technologies," it does not specify how individual software subscriptions are classified, and ask whether your module brief permits the tool for your intended purpose.
3. Inquire about disclosure expectations: Ask whether your module team requires an explicit statement, appendix log, or note indicating which tools were utilized during drafting or editing.
4. Archive the communication alongside the exact policy text: Keep a written copy of your instructor's response, the module assessment brief, and the live version of the university policy (Version 1.0, 2026/27). Note also that while the main policy is numbered Version 1.0, related institutional resources such as the staff guidance on AI contain no formal version number or publication date, so recording the exact date you checked them is good practice. Retaining the exact guidance in place when your assessment was assigned protects you if questions arise later.

Below is an adaptable inquiry template you can customize when emailing your module leader or tutor:

"Dear [Module Leader Name], regarding the upcoming assessment brief for [Module Code / Title], I am writing to clarify the permitted scope of digital writing assistance under Version 1.0 of the University's Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy. Because the policy defines both paid services and technologies without specifying how commercial software subscriptions are treated, I want to confirm the boundaries for this assessment. Specifically, I plan to use [Tool Name, e.g., Microsoft Editor / Grammarly extension] solely for proofreading support (identifying spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors) on my independently written draft. All research, arguments, structural outlining, and sentence drafting remain entirely my own work. Could you confirm whether this specific usage is permitted under this module's assessment brief, and whether you would like an acknowledgment statement included in the submission? Thank you for your guidance."

Does paying for a personal subscription to software like Grammarly Premium or Microsoft 365 violate the Leeds "paid services" rule? The written policy does not settle this question. Version 1.0 defines "paid services" as "an external person and/or company paid for by the student" while defining "technologies" as digital tools "that are paid, unpaid or provided by the University." Which category a paid software subscription falls into is a decision Leeds and your module team make, not us. Even if a tool is treated as a technology (which is permitted for proofreading support where briefs do not specify restrictions), it must not replace a student's own learning, understanding, and skills, and individual module assessment briefs have the authority to ban specific tools. Always consult your module leader to clarify whether your intended tool is permitted before using it.

Can I use a commercial tool that claims to "humanize" or make text "undetectable"? Whether any rewriting or editing tool is permitted depends on your institution's regulations and your specific assessment brief, which set the binding rules for your work. At Leeds, Clause 8.7 of the academic misconduct regulations explicitly prohibits submitting work "where the content has been manipulated to avoid detection." If software is used with the intent to evade detection systems or disguise non-original writing, that conduct breaches Clause 8.7. If you are considering using a tool for drafting, polishing, or style adjustments, consult your module assessment brief and course instructors to check what forms of assistance are permitted, and never rely on claims that a tool will produce guaranteed or undetectable detector scores.

What if my module assessment brief contains no specific statement on AI or software? Under the Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy, the university operates on the principle that the use of assistance will normally be permitted, explicitly providing: "Students are permitted to use technologies to prepare work for assessment if restrictions are not specified within the assessment brief." However, this permission is subject to the condition that "Technologies may be used in a supportive capacity but will not replace a student’s own learning, understanding and skills." Students remain responsible for drafting and refining their work and may be asked to demonstrate authorship. Furthermore, individual module briefs retain the authority to specify restrictions or prohibit specific tools, so checking with your module leader remains the safest course if you are unsure.

How does Leeds investigate suspected unauthorized software use if staff are told not to use online AI detectors? Leeds staff guidance states that educators should not use online AI detection tools because they are insufficiently accurate to be used as evidence and carry data security risks. The guidance notes that the university has formal processes for considering possible breaches, and under the Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy, students may be asked to demonstrate authorship to confirm the authenticity of their work.

University of Leeds Secretariat. Academic Integrity and Assistance Policy (Version 1.0, approved by Senate 8 July 2026 for implementation from academic year 2026/27). https://secretariat.leeds.ac.uk/home/academic-regulations-and-taught-student-policies-and-procedures/academic-integrity-and-assistance-policy/

University of Leeds Secretariat. Guidance to Staff on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Checked September 2026; incorporating Clause 8.7 Grievous Academic Misconduct and guidance on AI detection tools). https://secretariat.leeds.ac.uk/policies-procedures-and-codes-of-practice/guidance-to-staff-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/

University of Leeds. Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidance (Noting decommissioning of the three-tiered traffic light system from 2026/27). https://generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk/