What makes it different

Five design decisions

Most AI guidance is either a list of principles or a compliance checklist. Five deliberate choices make this something an institution can actually operate. Each solves a specific failure of the usual approaches.

{{ dec.n }}

{{ dec.title }}

{{ dec.body }}

{{ dec.why }}

{{ it.k }} · {{ it.v }}
Proportionality & risk tiering

Apply governance in proportion to context

Governance intensity should scale to the actual stakes — not applied uniformly, and not driven by fear. The same weight should never fall on a faculty member using a writing assistant and on a system determining financial-aid eligibility. Proportionality weighs several factors together:

Consequence & risk
Who is affected, and how severely if the system errs.
Decision context
Whether AI advises a human or determines the outcome.
Capability & autonomy
From assistive tools to autonomous, agentic systems.
Institutional capacity
The institution’s size, resources, and mission.
The three tiers
{{ t.risk }}
{{ t.label }}

{{ t.desc }}

Phased implementation sequence

Adopt in two phases, not all at once

Establish a minimum viable governance stack first, then extend to the full framework once the infrastructure is operational.

{{ p.tag }}

{{ p.title }}

{{ p.desc }}

{{ pd.num2 }} {{ pd.title }}

Domain 9 — Governance, Oversight, and Continuous Review — should be the first established, not the last.

The Nine AI Governance Domains for Higher Education · Version 1.0, March 2026
General guidance — not legal advice. Confirm applicability with your own counsel, privacy office, and leadership; your institution’s local rules govern.
Part of the Campus AI Framework · Pillar 4
Joe Sabado · CampusAIExchange.com
Licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Developed with AI assistance