Academic integrity.
The College expects the work to be yours. It says that once, plainly, spends its effort on assessment that is hard to fake rather than software that tries to catch you, and has a procedure for a suspected breach that gives you a reply and an appeal.
Design, not detection.
This is a considered institutional position with a cost attached, not a soft-pedalled policy.
Detection is an arms race the institution loses
Any system built on catching people depends on staying ahead of tools that improve monthly and cost nothing. An institution whose integrity rests on detection has staked it on a race it will not win. One whose assessments require a person to be present and accountable is not in the race at all.
It is more expensive to run
Live defence and recorded speech take staff time; a plagiarism scanner takes a subscription. The College accepts the more expensive arrangement because the cheaper one does not work.
Four features of the assessment scheme.
The capstone is defended live
A learner who did not produce the work cannot defend it, and establishing that requires no detection tool — only a conversation.
Recorded speech at every level
Speaking assessments are your voice. Substituting for them requires substituting a person.
A portfolio that develops
Development over months is visible in a portfolio, and a sudden discontinuity in voice is obvious to any reader without any tool being involved.
Tasks, not essay prompts
Assessments ask you to do something in a situation rather than to produce prose on a topic — which is precisely what generative tools answer most easily.
Stated plainly, because you will use them.
Submitted work must be yours
Work you submit for assessment must be your own production. That is the whole rule, and it applies to a generative tool exactly as it applies to a friend who writes it for you.
Because a ban would be unenforceable and dishonest
Looking a word up, checking a phrase, asking for an explanation — these are studying. The College does not pretend to police them and does not moralise about them. What it does is assess in ways where the distinction stops mattering.
The procedure, adopted 14 August 2026.
It is put to you first
A suspected breach is put to the learner before any finding is made, in writing, with what is alleged and what it rests on. A finding made without that is not defensible — to you, or to any later reviewer.
You respond
Your response is part of the record and is considered before the decision, not after it. There is no stage at which a conclusion is reached and then explained to you.
The Board decides
The decision, the reason and the evidence relied on are recorded together. An outcome without a recorded reason cannot be appealed against, which makes the appeal a formality.
You may appeal
To someone not involved in the original decision. This is the part that makes the rest of it mean anything, and it is not an optional extra.
The two cases it is written for are submitted work that is not the learner’s own, and impersonation in a spoken assessment. Where an award is withdrawn following a finding, the verification page shows it as withdrawn rather than deleting it — a register that quietly loses entries cannot be trusted about the entries it keeps. No misconduct case has been opened against anyone, because nobody has been taught; the procedure exists ahead of the first allegation rather than after it, which is the only order in which it can be fair.