Rules guide

JCQ AI guidance 2026-27: what changed.

JCQ, the group that writes the shared rules for the main exam boards, rewrote its AI Use in Assessments document for September 2026. AI tools, like ChatGPT, can write or change text for you. Here are the changes that matter most to schools, compared with last year, each with its source.

Last reviewed: 2 Nov 2026
Checked against: JCQ documents effective 1 September 2026

In short

Centres need a process for suspected AI misuse before the student signs their declaration.
Students doing NEA must be given JCQ’s Information for Candidates: AI before they start.
Centre policies are stronger, reviewed each year, and cover every qualification with NEA or coursework.
Students keep the original work when an AI tool changes it directly, as well as their prompts and what the tool gave.
Teachers sign that they took steps against AI misuse, that help was recorded, and that AI wasn’t the only marker.

Where to find the changes

AI Use in Assessments now opens with a table, “Key changes since last version”, listing every change by section. The coursework and NEA (non-examination assessment) instructions highlight their changes since last year in yellow. The points below come from those documents. Read the table yourself if you lead on this: it lists more than we cover here.

A process for suspected misuse

New: centres must have a process for handling suspected AI misuse before the student signs their declaration and hands the work in (section 4). JCQ also made clear that these worries are dealt with by the centre and don’t go to the awarding body (section 7), and set out the difference between worries found before and after the declaration is signed (section 9).

For cases reported after the declaration, section 9 now lists the student’s rights: to be told what they are accused of, to see the evidence, and to give a statement. Our guide A process for suspected AI misuse before authentication covers this in full.

The AI notice for students

New: students doing NEA must be given JCQ’s Information for Candidates: AI (Artificial Intelligence and Assessments) before they start work. JCQ published it in October 2025, and it must be issued from September 2026 (section 4). JCQ also encourages sessions for students on acceptable and unacceptable AI use, how to acknowledge it, and what happens if it’s misused (section 7).

Centre policy and staff

Strengthened: the requirements for the centre’s malpractice policy and how work is authenticated, including a yearly review by a senior leader (section 4). The changes also say:

Your approach to AI misuse should cover every qualification you offer with NEA or coursework, with arrangements for each subject and for private candidates (sections 4 and 7).
Centres should think about how to gain parents’ and carers’ support (section 4).
Access to online AI tools must be restricted on centre devices used for exams (section 4).
Staff are expected to understand AI tools, the software that tries to spot AI text, and how students use AI. Suggested training now includes hands-on practice with AI tools and how to look into a suspected case (sections 4, 7 and 8).

Acknowledging AI and keeping evidence

Keeping the prompts and what the AI tool gave, in a form that can’t be edited (such as a screenshot), with a short explanation, isn’t new. JCQ describes the 2026 wording as expanded guidance. What has changed:

New: where AI tools or agents change a student’s work directly, the student must also keep a copy of the original work from before the change (section 5).
Clarified: AI used for planning, structuring or guidance must be acknowledged too, not only AI text that ends up in the work (sections 3 and 5).
Expanded: examples of misuse now include unacknowledged help with planning, structure, spelling, punctuation, grammar and translation (section 3).

Naming just “AI” or “ChatGPT” is still not enough. The reference names the tool and the date the content was generated (section 5).

Evidence of how the work was made

New guidance in section 7 suggests centres keep drafts, plans, notes and version histories, use tools that track how the work develops, have short conversations with students as the work goes on, and set tasks that are topical and specific.

Marking and the teacher declaration

New guidance in section 6: where a centre allows AI tools to help with marking, an AI tool can’t be the only marker. A person reviews the whole piece of work and stays responsible for the mark. Where acknowledged AI use affected a mark, clear records should be kept.

The teacher declaration in the 2026-27 coursework and NEA instructions now includes:

“all reasonable steps were taken, including steps to mitigate the risk of AI misuse”

JCQ Instructions for conducting coursework 2026-27, Appendix 1

“any help given to the candidate has been recorded”

JCQ Instructions for conducting coursework 2026-27, Appendix 1

It also asks teachers to confirm that AI was not used as the only form of marking, and that they reviewed the whole piece of work. Our guide The 2026-27 teacher declaration, line by line takes each line in turn.

Spotting misuse: more signs, same caution

Expanded: a much longer list of signs that may suggest AI misuse, grouped by theme, such as a change in style from earlier work or a single large block of finished text. A new Appendix C adds detail, and says no single sign is conclusive. New guidance covers working out the prompt a student may have used, tools that compare work with a student’s known writing, and watermarks.

Strengthened: software that guesses whether AI wrote something should only be one part of a wider judgement, and must not be relied on alone (section 8). JCQ says it can produce both false positives and false negatives.

In your subject

JCQ now says centres must have subject-specific arrangements to prevent and spot AI misuse in every qualification with coursework or NEA (“Key changes”, section 7). Its 2026 list of what AI tools can do includes summarising text, writing to a set length and generating, explaining and debugging computer code (section 2). Pick your exam board to see its own AI wording where we found it. Where we found none, JCQ’s rules apply: check your board’s guidance.

All exam boards (JCQ)

Code. The new rule to keep the original work when an AI tool or agent changes it directly (section 5) applies to code too.

Planning and drafting. JCQ’s expanded examples of misuse include unacknowledged AI help with planning, structure, spelling, punctuation and grammar (section 3).

References and quotations. JCQ’s new signs of misuse include references that can’t be found or checked and quotations that can’t be traced to their stated source (section 8), and Appendix C warns that AI can produce fabricated references.

Your exam board

OCR

Computer Science (A level NEA). OCR’s guidance, updated 4 February 2026, says AI may support debugging, AI use in design should be discouraged, candidates must show where AI was used and how their own work grew from it, and using AI to generate the evaluation makes the upper mark bands very difficult to reach (OCR, AI in A Level Computer Science NEA).

EPQ. OCR added an AI section to its EPQ specification, H857 (OCR subject update 757501), and its guidance lists AI-generated production log entries, research and the written report as inappropriate (OCR, AI in the Extended Project, February 2026).

English (A level NEA). OCR says appropriate AI use in English NEA is in the planning and teaching stages only (OCR, AI in English, February 2024).

History (A level NEA). OCR added an AI section to its History A specification (OCR subject update 757501).

Design and Technology (NEA). OCR added an AI section to its D&T specifications (OCR subject update 757501).

AQA

Computer Science (A level NEA). AQA’s candidate record form lists AI tools among the materials a candidate must acknowledge (AQA 7517/C candidate record form). We found no other CS-specific AI guidance from AQA, so JCQ’s rules apply.

EPQ. AQA’s 2026/27 EPQ form carries the new teacher declaration lines, and asks students to give the AI tool, the date and the sources the tool used (AQA 7993 candidate record form and production log, 2026/27).

History (A level NEA). We found no History-specific AI guidance from AQA.

Not covered here: English and Design and Technology. JCQ’s rules apply, and check AQA’s own guidance for your specification.

Eduqas

Computer Science (A level NEA). We found no CS-specific AI guidance from Eduqas, so JCQ’s rules apply.

English (A level NEA). WJEC/Eduqas says any use of AI to create content for assessment is not permitted, and poor referencing is malpractice (WJEC/Eduqas, Managing AI in English NEA).

Design and Technology (NEA). Eduqas says AI-generated images don’t count as the candidate’s own ideas, and an AI-enhanced sketch is acceptable provided the original sketch is present (Eduqas, AI use in Design and Technology assessments).

Not covered here: EPQ and History. JCQ’s rules apply, and check Eduqas’s own guidance for your specification.

Pearson

EPQ. JCQ’s 2026 examples include a Pearson Extended Project candidate disqualified for unacknowledged AI content (JCQ AI Use in Assessments, Appendix A).

English (A level NEA). Pearson’s English authentication sheets now include an AI declaration, and using old sheets in May/June 2027 “will be treated as malpractice” (Pearson, 25 August 2026).

History (A level NEA). Pearson says AI should not select a student’s works, plan the assignment or write it, and a section reproduced from AI can’t count towards the mark (Pearson, A level History coursework AI guidance).

Design and Technology (NEA). Pearson reissued its component 2 AI guidance as version 3.0 on 22 May 2026, with AI use set out grid by grid: for example, a candidate who only used AI to generate design ideas, with no sketched, modelled or CAD ideas of their own, gets 0 marks for that grid (Pearson, AI in Design and Technology component 2).

Not covered here: Computer Science. JCQ’s rules apply, and check Pearson’s own guidance for your specification.

Sources

We review this guide each September, when the JCQ documents change. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.