The count in the cell shows density; what the intersection says is carried by the reading below.
This is the most densely populated cell in the matrix, and its density is misleading unless the instruments are distinguished by binding force. The European regulation is the single most frequently cited instrument across countries and functions as a shared reference layer; respondents in one country note that its prohibitions already apply while full effect follows on a stated date. Above that layer, national instruments differ sharply. One country approves a draft law aligning with the regulation. A second publishes federal guidelines and an education report within two days of each other, having reported nothing at all a year earlier. A third publishes material gathering legislation and recommendations while stating that the policies it contains are advisory. A fourth publishes an action plan directed towards deployment rather than towards compliance.
What recurs across the accounts is not the absence of policy but the absence of specificity. Respondents from several countries describe national frameworks that exist without reaching the questions higher education actually faces, and one respondent states the consequence directly: no standardised regulation for generative AI in education exists, which leaves universities responsible for their own institutional policies.
Who, and where
The actors carrying out the practice and where they are. Where a source does not name the institution, no attribution is made.
Institutions and actors
Government of the United Kingdom
Conference of Spanish Rectors (CRUE)
Government of Spain
Finnish National Agency for Education and Ministry of Education and Culture
Government of Cyprus
Swiss Confederation and State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation
Italian ministries
Turkish national authorities
European Union
Countries
United Kingdom
Spain
Finland
Cyprus
Switzerland
Italy
Türkiye
European Union
Context
Public authority
Higher education
How it was done
Each record stands with its imprint, its short reading and the sentence found in the source. Quotations are not shortened, so that a reader can check the inference.
A government action plan published in January 2025 sets out a roadmap for maximising the potential of AI across the country. Recorded as a change in nationwide practice rather than in policy, it marks the point at which the national conversation shifts from regulation towards deployment.
Institution
Government of the United Kingdom
Country
United Kingdom
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Public authority
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Established
Scalability
Established
Transferability
Piloted
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The partner dates the plan and gives its public address, and records it under practices rather than policies.
In January 2025 the government published the AI Opportunities Action Plan
The conference of Spanish rectors published recommendations covering opportunities, risks, ethics and evaluation. The document is not law but guides the university system, and it explicitly delegates implementation to individual universities while proposing shared principles, competence definitions, internal discussion processes, equity of access and an assessment of ecological cost.
Institution
Conference of Spanish Rectors (CRUE)
Country
Spain
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Higher education
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2024
Maturity
Established
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Embedded
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The entry states both the non-binding character of the document and the delegation of implementation, which together define its reach.
Certain recommendations were made, but the implementation of practices was delegated to the universities
A draft law approved by the government in March 2025 aligns national provision with the EU AI Act. Its appearance in the second round is one of the clearest instances of European regulation propagating into national legislation during the observation period.
Institution
Government of Spain
Country
Spain
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Public authority
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Piloted
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Established
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The partner reports the instrument as a draft, so it is coded below adopted legislation.
In March 2025, the Spanish government approved a draft law
Material published in April 2025 by the national agency for education and the ministry gathers legislation and recommendations for 2025, prepared with practitioners, researchers and other stakeholders. The partner records the policies it contains as advisory rather than binding.
Institution
Finnish National Agency for Education and Ministry of Education and Culture
Country
Finland
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Higher education
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Established
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Established
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The partner reports the material with its date, its collaborative preparation and its advisory status in a single entry.
Policies introduced in this material are merely advisory than binding.
A national task force was established and seminars and workshops on generative AI and large language models in education were held. The pairing of a committee with public events is the shape national activity takes where no education-specific framework yet exists.
Institution
Government of Cyprus
Country
Cyprus
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Public authority
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Piloted
Scalability
Established
Transferability
Established
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The partner records the establishment of the committee as a change in nationwide practice during the second round.
Establishment of a National Specialized Committee (task force) on
Guidelines for the confederation were published on 1 July 2025 and a report on AI in education followed a day later. In a partnership where the previous round recorded no national policy at all for this country, the appearance of two instruments within two days marks a distinct change of pace.
Institution
Swiss Confederation and State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation
Country
Switzerland
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Public authority
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Piloted
Scalability
Established
Transferability
Established
Source report
D3.2
Evidence
The second round names both instruments with their dates, against a first round in which the same partner reported that none existed.
Respondents describe a framework in which the European AI Act operates together with recent national legislation of September 2025, ministerial guidelines for schools and a national AI strategy covering 2024 to 2026. The layering of European and national instruments is what respondents themselves report as governing use.
Institution
Italian ministries
Country
Italy
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Public authority
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2025
Maturity
Established
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Piloted
Source report
R3
Evidence
Two independent respondents name the same combination of European and national instruments, which is stronger than a single account.
which combines the European AI Act (EU 2024/1689) with recent national legislation (Law No 132 of 17 September 2025)
An administrator describes a national framework combining the national AI strategy, an AI in education policy document and action plan for 2025 to 2029, and generative AI guidelines from the research council. The same account states that no fully standardised regulation for generative AI in education exists, leaving universities responsible for their own institutional policies.
Institution
Turkish national authorities
Country
Türkiye
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Higher education
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2026
Maturity
Piloted
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Piloted
Source report
R3
Evidence
The respondent names the instruments and, in the same sentence, states the gap they leave, which is what makes the account usable as evidence about the level rather than as advocacy.
there is still no fully standardized, detailed regulation specifically for generative AI in education, leaving universities with significant responsibility to develop their own institutional policies
The regulation is the single most frequently named instrument across countries in the third round, cited by respondents regardless of where they work. It functions as the common reference layer beneath national frameworks that otherwise differ widely in form and force.
Institution
European Union
Country
European Union
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Higher education
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2024
Maturity
Embedded
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Embedded
Source report
R3
Evidence
The report states outright that it is the most cited instrument irrespective of country, which is a claim about distribution rather than a single mention.
EU AI Act is undoubtedly the single most-cited one, regardless of the country
A support staff respondent reports that the European regulation takes effect nationally on 2 August 2026 while its prohibitions already apply. The distinction between staged application and full entry into force is what institutions have to plan against.
Institution
European Union
Country
Finland
Delivery model
not stated in the source
Context
Higher education
Contributed by
not stated in the source
Year
2026
Maturity
Established
Scalability
Embedded
Transferability
Embedded
Source report
R3
Evidence
The respondent gives a specific date and notes the prohibitions already in force, which is a checkable statement rather than a general impression.
The EU’s AI Regulation will take effect in Finland on August 2, 2026, but the prohibitions have already come into force.