Cathedral Entrepreneurship Society

1) Purpose

The Cathedral Entrepreneurship Society encourages responsible use of AI tools to enhance learning, accelerate iteration, and support the development of stronger work. CES simultaneously expects students to produce original thinking, rigorous reasoning, and authentic decision-making. The objective is not to eliminate AI use, but to ensure that AI supports rather than replaces intellectual engagement.

2) Core Principles

Permitted: AI as a tool for clarity, exploration, and refinement.

Not Permitted: AI as the primary author of ideas, analysis, or decisions.

What We Value:

• Demonstrated reasoning
• Sound judgment
• Creative thinking
• Ability to articulate and defend work in discussion

3) What AI Use Is Encouraged For

Students may use AI for:

• Exploring alternative perspectives, questions, and approaches
• Developing structural outlines and improving organizational flow
• Refining and clarifying self-authored drafts
• Synthesizing personal notes, interview transcripts, research materials, or lecture content
• Developing checklists, templates, timelines, and project management tools
• Troubleshooting spreadsheets, calculations, or formatting (where understanding of underlying logic is maintained)
• Preparation and rehearsal (e.g., scenario testing and critical questioning)

4) What AI Use Is Not Acceptable For

Students may not use AI to:

• Produce final submissions that cannot be explained or defended
• Generate factual claims, sources, interview quotes, survey data, case studies, or numerical results
• Create fabricated citations or references for sources not independently reviewed
• Generate complete strategy or analysis to be presented as original thinking
• Integrate tool-generated content directly into submissions without substantive revision and demonstrated ownership
• Obscure authorship through paraphrasing or "humanization" tools

Work that appears to originate from algorithmic generation and cannot be explained through reasoning will be treated as inauthentic.

5) The CES Standard

A submission is ready for evaluation when the author can clearly articulate the reasoning, decisions, and conclusions in a 2–3 minute discussion without reference to the written work. If this standard cannot be met, the submission requires further development.

6) AI Disclosure

Every submission must include a brief AI Use Statement (3–6 lines):

• Tools employed (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Grammarly, Perplexity)
• Specific functions (brainstorming, structural development, editing, etc.)
• Components representing independent work (insights, decisions, conclusions)
• Any AI-generated text retained verbatim (if applicable)

Example Statement: "Used ChatGPT to generate brainstorming prompts and propose organizational structure. Analysis, conclusions, and recommendations derive entirely from conducted surveys and interviews. AI output was substantially revised for precision and alignment with research findings."

7) Evidence of Thinking

CES requires submission of one of the following as an appendix or linked resource:

• Photographs or screenshots of preliminary notes or conceptual mapping
• Decision log documenting substantive revisions and rationale (5–10 entries)
• Research documentation (sources with 3 key takeaways per resource)
• Interview or survey summary notes
• Version history demonstrating iterative development

8) Review Process

Mentors may conduct authenticity assessments through:

• Requests to substantiate claims, data points, or strategic decisions
• Inquiries regarding decision-making process and rationale
• Review of supporting notes and research documentation
• Structured discussion to evaluate depth of understanding

9) Consequences

Submissions that violate this policy will be addressed as follows:

1. Initial Violation: Resubmission required following a mentor consultation
2. Repeated Violations: Score adjustment or "Needs Improvement" designation for the module
3. Severe Cases: Disqualification from program recognition or escalation to program leadership (including fabricated data or sources)