Every secondary school with consent to assess DASS-listed standards is required to have an authenticity policy that explicitly addresses generative AI. This is not a suggestion. It is a mandatory condition of holding that consent. The regulatory framework is clear, but the operational gap is vast. Boards are governing a compliance minefield where policy failure triggers immediate audit findings and academic invalidation.

The Audit Trigger

The auditor’s first move is a document check. They will request the school’s authenticity policy and cross-reference it against the NZQA’s mandatory requirements. A missing policy, or one that lacks specific GenAI provisions, is an immediate finding. The second trigger is evidence review. For any internally assessed standard, the auditor will sample student submissions and teacher verification records. They are looking for a breach of the core principle: “valid assessment evidence must be the student’s own work.” If GenAI-generated content is presented as a student’s own work, the assessment is invalid. The auditor will trace this failure back to the policy and procedural controls the board is responsible for.

The Regulatory Hook

The hook is the Consent to Assess Against Standards on the Directory of Assessment Standards granted under the Education and Training Act 2020. Compliance with NZQA’s Assessment and Moderation Rules and Assessment and Moderation Requirements is a non-discretionary condition. Rule 1.3 mandates the authenticity policy. The Requirements state GenAI “is not permitted for external assessment.” For internal assessment, its use must be explicitly managed within the school’s policy and the specific Conditions of Assessment for each achievement standard. Any deviation is a breach of the school’s consent to assess. The board’s governance duty is to ensure the operational policy framework meets these exacting standards.