Yes, within limits your advisor sets, and every use has to be documented. Section 3.6.E of the NC State Graduate Handbook, in the 2026-2027 Graduate Catalog, is the Graduate School's AI policy for dissertations and theses. It allows generative AI (GAI) tools, asks advisors to say which tools are permitted, and requires a clear and thorough account of the use. That account goes into the Authorship Statement, which your advisory committee must approve before you can pass the final oral exam. We read the handbook and the ETD Guide on November 9, 2026.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
The handbook section is titled Artificial Intelligence policy for dissertations and theses. It frames itself as a way to let graduate students use these tools ethically, and it builds everything on one sentence: “Candidates utilizing GAI tools must document their use clearly and thoroughly in their dissertation or thesis.”
The handbook also takes a position on plagiarism. Using a large language model is not plagiarism in itself, it says. Including its output without understanding it, or with poor documentation, may be. So the line at NC State runs between documented and undocumented use, and between understood and unexamined output.
There is no general ban and no general permission either. The section expects your advisor and your program to fill in the details, which is where the next section comes in.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour methods chapter says the interview transcripts were coded by hand, while your Authorship Statement mentions a GAI tool used for coding support. Which of the two describes what happened to the transcripts?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThree layers apply. The Graduate School sets the documentation principle above. Your advisor is expected to be direct and transparent about which tools you may use and why any restriction exists. Your program may adopt its own principles for its field, and if it does, the handbook says they must be communicated to students and applied uniformly by advisory committees.
The handbook asks you to raise authorship and acceptable GAI use with your advisor as early as practically possible. Here is how the section treats the uses it mentions:
| Use | What section 3.6.E says | What to have ready (our suggestion) |
|---|---|---|
| Spelling and grammar assistants | Generally allowed and rarely acknowledged; if in doubt, contact your committee or acknowledge the use | A note of which assistant you used on which chapters |
| Output from a language model in your text | Must be documented; poorly documented inclusion may be plagiarism | A record of each prompt and how you checked the result |
| Tools your advisor has restricted | Advisors explain what is permitted and the reasons for restrictions | The advisor's answer in writing |
| Crediting a tool as co-author | No; the handbook follows Nature in saying a tool cannot take responsibility for the work | An authorship line with people only |
| Detectors of AI-generated text | Their use is discouraged because they are unreliable | Nothing; this concerns readers of the thesis more than you |
Section 3.6.F requires an Authorship Statement in every thesis or dissertation. You develop it with your advisor and advisory committee. Besides listing contributions from co-authors and collaborators, it must contain a clear and thorough description of whether and how GAI tools were used, as per section 3.6.E. It sits in the preliminary pages, before the first chapter.
The Graduate School's ETD Guide adds a practical point: “Please include a sentence acknowledging whether or not generative artificial intelligence was used at any point in the creation of the document.” So even a thesis made without any GAI tool needs a sentence saying so. Leaving the topic out is not the same as saying none was used.
The handbook ties the statement to your degree. Your advisory committee has to approve the Authorship Statement as a necessary condition for passing the final oral examination, and the chair certifies on the exam form that the committee reviewed it and approved it unanimously. Because that approval has to be unanimous, a vague line about AI has a real cost: one member who finds it incomplete can hold up the exam.
For doctoral students there is an earlier checkpoint. Authorship expectations must be discussed with the advisor, preferably with the committee, as early as practical and no later than the preliminary oral exam. Master's students have no named checkpoint, but the same advice to start early applies.
Section 3.6.E warns that GAI tools raise privacy and intellectual property issues, since submitted material can become part of a tool's database and user information can be collected.
NC State's AI Hub page for researchers is more specific about research that is not yet public: “Inputting unpatented or unpublished information into AI tools, not covered by university enterprise licenses, may lead the University and others to lose their IP rights to that information.” The same page gives researchers the autonomy to select their tools and points to an OIT list of recommended AI systems. The university's guiding principles add that using university data with unapproved AI tools requires an IT Purchase Compliance request. Whether your own draft counts as university data is not settled by these texts, so ask your advisor before you upload it to Esmond or any tool NC State has not approved. That question matters most for findings that could lead to a patent or data covered by a sponsor agreement.
This example is made up. A master's student in textile engineering uses a grammar assistant throughout and, during the literature review, asks a chatbot to translate four German technical standards into English so she can cite them. Her Authorship Statement says that no generative AI was used. The grammar assistant probably needed no mention under the handbook. The translations are different: they shaped what she reports about four sources, and the ETD Guide asks whether GAI was used at any point in creating the document. At the final oral exam one committee member recognizes the translated passages, and the statement the committee must approve no longer matches the work.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond evaluates the content of a draft from within your field and points out factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots. See how Esmond works and a sample report. NC State's handbook allows GAI tools when their use is documented clearly and thoroughly, and it leaves the list of permitted tools to your advisor. So ask your advisor whether Esmond fits your project, check your program's principles, and if you use it, describe that use in your Authorship Statement like any other GAI tool. Whether your draft counts as university data under NC State's rules is not settled by these texts, so ask your advisor about that before you upload it, and read the Privacy Notice. For the general question, see whether you can use Esmond. NC State has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
No. The Graduate Handbook allows GAI tools if you document their use clearly and thoroughly in the thesis or dissertation. Your advisor says which tools are permitted, and your program can add principles.
Yes. The ETD Guide asks for a sentence in the Authorship Statement saying whether or not generative AI was used at any point.
The handbook says such tools are generally allowed and rarely acknowledged. If in doubt, contact your advisory committee or acknowledge the use.
Committee approval of the statement is a necessary condition for passing the final oral examination, according to section 3.6.F.
No. The handbook follows Nature in saying that no language model should be credited as a co-author.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit