AI Capability & Evidence Pulse Check
Use fifteen signal practices to get a fast, provisional view of how AI capability is developing across your school. The Pulse Check looks beyond visible activity and asks whether implementation and supporting evidence are developing together.
The result can help a dean, associate dean, assessment leader, or program team identify which parts of the educational system deserve a closer look. It is especially useful when the school has several AI initiatives underway but leadership does not yet have a shared picture of what those efforts add up to.
This is a self-rating tool. Evidence strength reflects what you believe the school can currently substantiate; Navigate AI does not review artifacts as part of the free Pulse Check. The result provides orientation rather than an institutional finding.
Look for the pattern between practice and evidence.
The overall profile matters less than the reason behind it. A school with strong implementation and weaker evidence faces a documentation and verification problem. A school with early implementation needs a different response: clearer capability definitions, curriculum decisions, course changes, or faculty support.
Implementation maturity
Rate how consistently the practice operates across the school or program scope you have in mind.
Evidence strength
Rate what you could currently support with policies, maps, course artifacts, direct measures, student work, or improvement records.
Evidence lag
Use the gap to identify where activity may be ahead of what leadership can confidently substantiate.
Use the same scale for every practice.
Rate what operates today and what you could substantiate today. A strong implementation rating should reflect consistent practice across the scope you have in mind. A strong evidence rating should reflect artifacts or results that support the claim, rather than confidence that the evidence probably exists.
| Score | Implementation maturity | Evidence strength |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Absent | None located |
| 1 | Isolated | Asserted |
| 2 | Established | Documented |
| 3 | Integrated | Demonstrated |
| 4 | Institutionalized | Improved |
When implementation exceeds evidence by one point or more, the tool flags an evidence lag. That may indicate meaningful practice that has not yet become easy to document, or a claim that deserves closer verification before leadership relies on it.
Strategy, Governance, Ownership & Enablement
Standards 1-2
Curriculum & Graduate AI Competencies
Standard 4 · 4.3
Assurance of Learning & Student Evidence
Standard 5
Course & Assessment Readiness
Standards 4, 5, 7
Faculty Capability & Support
Standards 3, 7
Measurement & Continuous Improvement
Standards 1, 4, 5, 7
See the pattern behind the current self-ratings.
Complete the assessment
All in-scope items must have both ratings before a complete result is generated.
Email yourself the provisional scorecard.
The scorecard gives you a record of the self-rated maturity, evidence, and evidence-lag pattern. Navigate AI uses the submission to send the result and may follow up about whether the full self-assessment, an independent Diagnostic, or a focused solution would be useful. Marketing updates remain optional.
Navigate AI is independent of AACSB and does not make accreditation determinations. Ratings stay in your browser until you choose to submit. Free self-assessment responses are not included in a future verified institutional benchmark.
If the Pulse Check surfaces an important evidence gap, disagreement among leaders, or uncertainty about what current artifacts actually support, the AI Capability & Evidence Diagnostic adds scope confirmation, artifact review, reviewer ratings, and a prioritized roadmap. You can also request a briefing to discuss a narrower course, assessment, or curriculum question.