Public
Examples
Website, brochures, external communications, freely available information.
Any tool
No tool restriction. Verification before circulation still applies.
Common core, version 3.0.1, in force since September 2026
Charter on the use ofartificial intelligence
Five principles, five authorisation levels, four data categories. What you may do with AI at ISC Paris, without opening a forty-page document.
AI is not an end. It is a means of contributing to a happy world.
ISC Paris purpose
89%
of business school students, teachers and staff use generative AI at least once a week
See the Future Study 2026, CarringtonCrisp, 4Uni, EFMD, Full Fabric. n = 1,863, 40 countries.
4%
of students consider themselves expert in generative AI. Among teachers, 6%
See the Future Study 2026.
46%
of institutional AI policies actually cover classroom use, while 73% of institutions report having one
See the Future Study 2026.
362
AI incidents documented worldwide in 2025, up 55% year on year
AI Index Report 2026, Stanford HAI.
How to read this signage
Pink, the N0 to N4 scale: how much AI an assessment permits, from the most closed to the most open.
Green, allowed
You may proceed. The principle of Caution always applies.
Amber, conditional
Possible under conditions: approved tool, authorisation, statement.
Red, prohibited
Do not proceed. Write to the AITO if your need is genuine.
The five principles
One sentence each. Everything else in the charter is the manual.
Transparency
You use AI. You say so.
Transparency is the condition of trust. It protects your work, the person reading it, and the institution. It also binds the school, which publishes its own usage indicator every year.
Responsibility
AI proposes. A human validates. A human answers for it.
No decision affecting a person, grading, recruitment, sanction, admission, is taken without human validation.
Caution
Check before you circulate. Doubt by default.
Protect sensitive data. AI can be confidently wrong. Rigour remains your job.
Restraint
The right tool for the job. No more than that.
Three requirements at once: quality of outcome, energy sobriety, intellectual autonomy. Learning to use AI also means learning to do without it when it adds nothing.
Curiosity
Learn, explore, challenge, adjust.
Tools, uses and risks move fast. The charter itself is a living document, revised every year.
Four categories of data
What you may hand to an AI depends first on the nature of the data. This classification applies everywhere, on every campus.
Internal
Examples
Course material, meeting notes, working documents, ongoing projects.
AITO-approved tools only
The list is reviewed quarterly by the AI Transformation Office.
Confidential
Examples
Budgets, examinations, strategy, contracts, sensitive correspondence.
Approved tools plus prior authorisation
Both conditions together, never one or the other.
Personal
Examples
HR data, student files, health, identity.
Prohibited
In any tool not approved by ISC Paris, without exception.
Pseudonymising is not enough
Effective pseudonymisation, within the meaning of Article 4(5) GDPR, does not remove personal data status: it does not authorise the use of an unapproved tool. Anonymisation within the meaning of Recital 26 is rarely achievable on rich text, and validating it falls to the Data Protection Officer. A student file with the name deleted is still a student file.
Five authorisation levels
The level appears on every assessment brief. Select a panel to read what it allows.
N0 No AI assistance whatsoever. Controlled environment.
In practice
Written exam, invigilated test, oral. What you submit comes from you, without exception.
Statement
No statement expected, since no use is permitted.
Permitted AI intensity
N0N4
By default By default: submitted work at N2, invigilated exams at N0 or N1. Where the brief says nothing, the default level applies. In case of doubt, the student asks the teacher before starting, not after submitting.
Scale aligned with the AI Assessment Scale (Perkins, Furze, Roe and MacVaugh, revised version, 2024).
Four tools that actually answer
They apply the rules written in the charter, nothing more. Where the charter does not decide, they send you to the AI Transformation Office rather than guessing.
- This data, in this toolA green, amber or red light, with the exact reference in the charter.Staff, faculty
- Which level applies to my workThree questions, the applicable level and what it permits.Students
- AI use statement builderA block to copy, ready to paste at the end of a document.Everyone
- Syllabus blockThe level and its conditions, worded for an assessment brief.Faculty
Question 1 of 4
Does this data identify a person, directly or indirectly?
Name, address, grade, student file, CV, health information, photo, phone number, internal identifier.
This result guides you, it does not cover you. If doubt remains, write to aito@iscparis.com before sending anything.
A working framework, not a statement of intent
ISC Paris undertakes to comply with the AI Act and is bringing itself into compliance. The school does not proclaim itself compliant: it shows what exists today.
A level on every assessment
The N0 to N4 scale appears on assessment briefs. A standard syllabus block carries it, and a default level applies where nothing is stated.
Named governance
The AI Transformation Office coordinates, approves tools, trains and monitors. For arbitration it widens to a designated faculty member and an elected student. The DPO, IT and HR are consulted within their remit.
A revision cycle written into the text
Survey of all three populations in June, workshops in July, review over the summer, publication in September. Structural overhaul every two years.
A public indicator
ISC Paris publishes its request volumes, model types and main uses every year. Transparency binds the institution as much as individuals.
This charter declares its own use of AI
It was drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, in line with the principles it sets out.
What AI did: help with structure, consistency, sector practice monitoring, and first drafts of certain sections, all reworked by people.
What AI did not do: define the values and direction of ISC Paris, settle policy trade-offs, validate content without human supervision, or decide in place of those accountable.