Policy packages fall into four archetypes defined by which design element is missing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Nine packages were higher-clarity, four boundary-forward, eight had limited evidence visibility, and nine were partially connected, showing a design gradient rather than a permissive/restrictive divide. → Kai Yao 2026

Evidence¶

Kai Yao 2026¶

Kai Yao. (2026). What Does the Credential Still Certify? Cognitive Stewardship for AI-Mediated Education. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19988 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.19988

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Archetype analysis assigning the 30 audited packages to groups by the most visibly missing or unstable element. The quote lists all four groups; the authors note "Higher clarity did not mean more permissiveness."

"Nine packages were higher-clarity cases, four were boundary-forward cases, eight had limited evidence visibility, and nine were partially connected cases."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• University AI policies score higher on delegation boundaries than on evidence standards — related
• Teachers designing multi-agent workflows fall into three behavioral archetypes: Systematic Optimizers, Prolific Creators, and Passive Observers — related
• Teachers' post-workshop platform engagement fell into three behavioral profiles, with most teachers showing minimal creation and browsing — related
• Output-verification support is the least covered scenario in policy guidance — related
• Safeguards in university AI policies are sparse and unevenly covered — related
• In a 48-platform policy audit, data-collection disclosure was strongest while AI and accountability disclosures were weak — related
• Policy guidance is most actionable for final-output substitution scenarios — related