How does AIR APAC handle a conflict of interest?
AIRS-J/1 names the interests that could pull a result away from its published rules. It says who must declare an interest, and it sets the rules that keep each interest away from a result.
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work, sets the rules AIR APAC uses to certify people.
On this page, a conflict of interest means an interest that could move a decision away from the published rules. The Standard names the interests it knows about. It says who must declare an interest, and it sets rules that keep each interest away from a result.
The interest AIR APAC declares about itself
Built by Exeter Labs
Exeter Labs builds and operates StepSim, AIR APAC's official assessment instrument. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs.
AIRS-J/1 Section 4.9 lists the declared interests of the issuing body. StepSim is an AIR APAC initiative and the official instrument of the Standard (Section 16.3).
AIR Academy, AIR APAC's learning division, delivers the StepSim facilitator programme under a written arrangement with Exeter Labs (AIRS-J/1 Section 4.9). AIR APAC certifies facilitators under AIRS-J/1 Section 20.6; Exeter Labs issues the licence, not the certification. Section 4.9 ends: "Any further arrangement between the two is entered here before it takes effect." The two are AIR APAC and Exeter Labs, and "here" is Section 4.9.
How that interest is kept away from a result
- The rules decide. Certification outcomes "are decided by the rules in Section 12 alone, never by what a candidate or employer bought" (Section 4.3).
- The owner takes no part in results. "The owner of AIR APAC takes no part in any individual result." (Section 4.3)
- No hidden criteria. The complete rubric is public and versioned. AIR APAC applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override (Section 4.1).
- No pay tied to outcomes. No assessor, delivery partner, trainer or licensee is paid on a basis that varies with candidate outcomes. No trainer, delivery partner or licensee receives a fee or referral payment that varies with whether a participant presents for, or obtains, certification (Section 4.4).
- No criteria written by customers. Delivery partners and licensed trainers may not vary, extend, reweight or supplement the dimensions, anchors, thresholds or decision rules (Section 4.5).
- An appeals reviewer not employed by or paid through Exeter Labs. The reviewer was not involved in the original decision or delivery (Section 17).
Assessors
Section 4.6 applies where a human assessor scores or confirms an observation. No individual may act as sole assessor for a candidate they personally trained within the preceding twelve months. No individual may act as sole assessor for a candidate in their own reporting line. No individual may act as sole assessor where they hold a financial interest in the outcome. Assessors declare conflicts before each assessment, and the declarations are retained.
The review board
The review board reviews every major version of the Standard before release (Section 4.2). A member with an interest in a matter before the board declares it and does not advise on it (Section 17.1).
The owner of AIR APAC decides, and holds a veto over the board's recommendations (Section 4.2). The veto applies to the board's recommendations, not to results: the owner takes no part in any individual result (Section 4.3). Each board member's dissent from a released version is recorded in the version history.
What a reader can check
- The rubric. The full text of the Standard, versioned, is at airapac.org/standard/v2-3 (Section 4.1).
- The instruments. AIR APAC publishes the list of approved instruments and their owners at airapac.org/standard/instruments (Section 16.3).
- The version history. Each released version keeps a permanent URL, and its entry records what changed and why (Section 19.2). The owner of AIR APAC approves every version (Section 19.1).
- The board. The board's seats are listed at airapac.org/about (Section 17.1).
- The impartiality statement, required each year. Section 11.7 requires the validation report to carry it. The statement reports the share of certified candidates who trained with AIR APAC, its learning division or a licensed trainer before certifying. It also reports any other overlap between training and certification.
What a candidate can do
- Appeal. An undisclosed assessor conflict is a ground for appeal (Section 18.6). The appeals page sets out the route, the grounds and the time limit (Section 18.5). Appeal is free for the first instance.
- Complain. A complaint is distinct from an appeal. It may concern a delivery partner, an approved instrument or AIR APAC itself (Section 18.7). It goes through the complaints page. A complaint does not change certification status except through the due process in Sections 18.4 to 18.6.
What this does not claim
- It does not claim that AIR APAC and Exeter Labs have separate owners. They have one owner, and the Standard declares it.
- It does not claim that the interest is removed. The declarations make it visible, and the rules above keep it away from a result.
- It does not claim that an annual impartiality statement has been published, and it reports no share from one. Section 11.7 sets the requirement.
- It does not name the appeals reviewer or any board member.
- It does not say that the owner's veto reaches an individual result. Section 4.3 says it does not.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.