Yes, within limits you agree on with your supervisor and advisory committee. Waterloo's GenAI guidance for graduate students and supervisors, published on the university's site for current graduate students, asks research students to discuss the limit and scope of any tool with them, and says the answer often depends on the discipline. If they permit a use, you document it in the thesis with a citation and an acknowledgment. The page carries no date; we read it on November 9, 2026.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
For research, the guidance sends you to the people who supervise it: “For research, graduate students should consult with their supervisor(s) and advisory committee (if one exists) about the limit and scope of the use of GenAI tools, which is often discipline-dependent.” The page adds that permitted uses and expectations should be communicated between you and your supervisor(s), and it opens its advice with a plain instruction to check that a use is allowed before you rely on it.
The guidance lists the PhD thesis, research proposals, comprehensive examinations, and publications among the graduate milestones it has in mind. It holds students accountable for the content and accuracy of a master's or PhD thesis, including any part a GenAI tool supported. The guidance does not list uses that are allowed in every program, so the answer for your thesis comes from your supervisor.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour acknowledgment says a GenAI tool helped with language only, but a footnote in chapter 4 credits the same tool with fixing the simulation code behind your results. Which description is complete?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewWaterloo separates two settings. In a graduate course, the instructor sets the parameters in the syllabus or the assignment instructions, and some instructors prohibit GenAI for assignments altogether. Without explicit permission from the instructor, the guidance says you should never submit work that a GenAI tool produced. For research, the decision moves to your supervisor and, where you have one, your advisory committee.
| Setting | Who sets the limit | What to keep |
|---|---|---|
| Graduate course assignment | The course instructor, in the syllabus or assignment instructions | The syllabus text that covers the assignment |
| Thesis research, including code and data analysis | Your supervisor(s) and advisory committee, if one exists | A note or email naming each permitted use |
| Thesis chapters | The same people, as part of the research | Your citation and acknowledgment, drafted as you go |
| A paper sent to a journal | The journal, through its own publication rules | The journal's GenAI policy, saved with your submission |
Waterloo asks for more than a reference entry: “Students should explain when they used GenAI as a tool, what it contributed to their work, and what they did with the information it provided.” The guidance calls citation one part of this, and links to a Library document with recommendations for citing GenAI in student work, along with citation guidelines from Waterloo's WCC.
That gives you three things to record for each use: the moment you used the tool, what it added, and how you handled its output. An acknowledgment that only names the tool answers the first point at most. Keeping a short log while you work is easier than reconstructing it a year later.
The guidance is direct about ownership. As the author, you own the thesis and are responsible for its accuracy and integrity, including passages a GenAI tool supported. You must be able to interpret and explain anything a tool generated, and defend the contents of your thesis at the oral examination where your program holds one.
It also rules out one argument in advance: “Honest error or lack of intentionality is not a defence in potential academic misconduct.” The same page warns that generative AI is known to falsify references and fabricate facts, so a reference a tool invented becomes your problem once it sits in your bibliography.
Under limitations, the page summarizes statements from the Office of the Associate Vice-President, Academic. It asks you to know, and be comfortable with, the privacy permissions you give a platform when you put your own data or content into it. It calls the legal and copyright status of GenAI inputs and outputs unclear and advises caution with large portions of AI content, images in particular. For articles drawn from the thesis, it reminds you that each journal has its own rules on what counts as appropriate GenAI use.
Waterloo's IT office (IST) adds a central rule for University data, which it defines to include research data. Before such data goes into an AI tool, you check its class, and for one class IST says: “Confidential or Restricted: Use a University-approved AI tool (license required).” The records guidance for Policy 46 adds: “Preliminary drafts are considered Confidential, even if the final version is public, as they may differ significantly from the approved content.” Whether your own thesis draft counts as University data is not settled by these texts. Ask your supervisor before you upload it to Esmond or any other tool that is not on IST's approved list.
This example is made up. A master's student in systems design engineering agrees with her supervisor by email that she may use a GenAI tool to debug the simulation code behind her results. Her acknowledgment, drafted months later, says only that a GenAI tool "helped with language." The email shows the use was permitted. The acknowledgment does not say when she used the tool or what it contributed to chapter 4, and those are the points Waterloo asks students to explain. Two sentences naming the debugging, and how she checked the corrected code against known test cases, would close the gap.
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 thesis draft against the standards of your field and points out factual errors, inconsistencies, and blind spots. You can read how Esmond works and open a sample report. Under Waterloo's guidance, a review of your draft by an AI tool is one more use to raise with your supervisor and advisory committee when you agree on the scope of GenAI for your research. If they permit it, document it as you would any other tool: when you used it, what it pointed out, and what you changed or kept. Esmond is not on IST's list of approved AI tools, and whether your draft counts as University data is an open question, so settle it with your supervisor before you upload and read the Privacy Notice. The University of Waterloo has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
No. The graduate guidance leaves the limit and scope of GenAI in research to you, your supervisor(s), and your advisory committee. Some course instructors prohibit it for assignments, and your supervisor can set limits for your thesis.
Yes, if you used it. The guidance says any permitted use of AI-generated content should be documented with citation and acknowledgment, and that you explain what the tool contributed and what you did with its output.
No. Waterloo's guidance says honest error or lack of intentionality is no defense in a potential academic misconduct case. Check what a tool gives you before it goes into the thesis.
The page names the Graduate and Postdoctoral Programming Specialist as the contact for graduate students with GenAI questions, and the Associate Vice-President, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs for supervisors.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit