Provenance

Sources

Not everything behind this work is published. Where showing something would publish another party's internal working, the fact is recorded here and the contents are not.

Method and institutional process

A new undergraduate paper at an NZ university normally takes years: proposal, committees, revisions, board, timetabling, CUAP. This paper took Otago's special-topic route, which lets a paper run while it earns the right to become permanent. The approval chain, in order: proposal to the Commerce Divisional Board, board approval on 18 June 2026, the approved prescription (BSNS 350, 18 points, 0.15 EFTS, 300-level, NZQF Level 7), the course outline, then the paper page. Academic oversight is named and institutional: Otago lists Rachel McBride (Rowan Advisory) as convener and lecturer, with academic oversight by Mathew Parackal and Damien Mather, and educational design by Julie Timmermans of Otago's Centre for Enhancement of Digital and Innovative Learning.

How the work was developed

1. 18 June 2026Approved. The board-approved proposal and the Commerce Divisional Board minutes issued together. Commerce Divisional Board minutes, 18 June 2026
2. 13 August 2026MIT's Ad Hoc Committee report published, and read against the existing course design. See references
3. 28 August 2026A later mapping identified alignment with twenty of the MIT report's recommendations, each with a build cost and a measurement. Rowan's mapping table against the reportHeld by Rowan

4 further working documents, 28 June 2026 to 14 August 2026. Held by Rowan.

How this record was made

1. 18 August 2026This account drafted and redrafted three times in one day. Three dated draftsHeld by Rowan
2. 19 August 2026Published, v1.0. This page

One further working document, 12 August 2026. Held by Rowan.

Scheduled

1. 9 November 2026Scheduled to be first taught. Five weeks, pre-Christmas summer school, by distance from Dunedin. Approved prescription

Attested, contents withheld

The outline was reviewed by Otago academics before approval. Since July 2026 a claim ledger has tracked the public statements on this page, airoom.co.nz and the Otago paper page against their source documents.

Withheld

The review itself, and the ledger's rows.

Why

Both are Otago's or Rowan's internal working, and the fact of them is what evidences the claim.

References

• Report of MIT's Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 13 August 2026. https://sites.mit.edu/ai-use/files/2026/08/AI-Committee-Final-Report-Aug-13.pdfThe paper was approved in June 2026 and this report was published in August 2026, so it did not shape the design. A later mapping identified alignment with twenty of its recommendations. Its recommendation that an instructor disclose their own AI use is the reason the disclosure below exists.
• AI and Education: MIT's Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 13 August 2026. https://aiandeducation.mit.edu/The committee's published home.

AI use

I use Claude Code and Codex for drafting, claim-checking against source documents, and building this page. Rachel McBride owns the stance, the argument and every claim.

Edition and verification

Edition

v1.2

First published

19 August 2026

Last verified

10 September 2026

Version note

v1.2, 10 September 2026: the AI-use section replaced with Rachel's own policy, one statement. The imprint renamed Rowan Works.

The work this verifies

How we built an undergraduate AI paper in NZ