Why does AIR APAC publish no league tables?
AIRS-J/1 forbids AIR APAC to publish league tables of people or to compare employers by the scores of their candidates. This article sets out what the Standard says, the reason it gives, and what AIR APAC publishes in place of a ranking.
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work, sets the rules by which AIR APAC certifies the judgment of individuals.
A risk officer, the sponsor of a cohort and a journalist can each ask a version of the same question. Which people scored highest? Which employer's staff did best? Can the results be put in order?
What the Standard says
Section 12.7 of AIRS-J/1 is headed "No public ranking". Its first sentence is the rule: "AIR APAC publishes no individual league tables or employer-comparative candidate scores."
In plain words, a league table is a list of people placed in order by their results. An employer-comparative score sets one employer's candidates against another's. The Standard rules out both.
The same rule appears where an employer uses results to hire. Section 12.6 states: "AIR APAC provides no rank order of applicants; the band is the reading (Section 12.4)."
Section 1 makes comparability "the governing design constraint": two people assessed in different organisations, countries or delivery settings receive comparable results. Plain reading: a band carries the same meaning wherever it was earned. That is comparability. It is not a ranking, and Section 12.7 rules out the published order. Comparable across people, teams and markets explains that rule.
The reason the Standard gives for bands
Section 12.7 itself gives no reason. Section 12.4 is the nearest statement of one: certified results "are reported in bands, not raw composites, to prevent false precision and league-table misuse."
| Band | Composite | Additional condition |
|---|---|---|
| Certified | 2.3 to 2.9 | All floors met |
| Certified with Merit | 3.0 to 3.4 | No dimension below 2.5 |
| Certified with Distinction | 3.5 and above | No dimension below 3.0 |
Section 12.2.1 sets out how the composite is formed: it is "the arithmetic mean of all nine dimension scores". The same section adds: "The evidence programme tests it each year for sensitivity and classification consistency near the cut score."
Plain reading: a small difference between two composites can say less than the numbers suggest. A ranking built on such differences would claim more than the evidence supports.
The person still sees the detail. Under Section 12.5, every candidate receives every separately reportable dimension score, the four domain scores, the band, the confidence level and the evidence for each observation. This applies whether or not they certify. The rule limits what is published about people. It does not limit what the person receives under Section 12.5.
What an employer receives in place of a ranking
An employer that commissions an assessment of its own people receives each result by name (Section 12.6). For applicants, only the people deciding on the role receive each result by name (Section 12.6). The result includes the dimension and domain scores, the band, the confidence and the evidence behind each observation. The Standard calls an employment-grade result (Section 12.8) "AIR APAC's expert reading of the person's judgment in AI-enabled work, which the employer may rely on as one input". AIR APAC "does not make, and does not accept responsibility for, the employer's decision about the person."
Under the commissioning terms (Section 12.11), no hiring, promotion or appraisal decision rests on the result alone. A person reviews any decision that uses it.
The organisation also receives a team view, for the use of people in it who are not entitled to named results (Section 12.7). A team view counts levels and bands across the people assessed, for ten people or more. Below ten, none is given. For development use, a team view counts decisions and how the published rules read them, not levels or bands.
What a sponsor receives
A sponsor is an organisation that pays for a person's Assessment without commissioning it (Section 3). A sponsored candidate is an independent candidate. Section 12.6 states: "The sponsor learns the result only if the candidate names it under this section."
Where ten or more sponsored candidates from one sponsor have sat, the sponsor may receive "the number of credentials issued, and nothing else". A sponsor receives no team view beyond that count (Section 12.7).
What the register shows and does not show
The public register records the credential code, track, band, confidence, version, dates and status, among other fields. Section 14.1 states that it "does not record employer, dimension scores, stakes profiles, or any transcript content."
A holder's name appears only with "their explicit, separately-given, revocable consent" (Section 14.2). The default is verification by credential code. Verification is free and needs no account (Section 14.3). Plain reading: the register confirms that a credential is valid. It holds no employer and no dimension scores to set against each other.
What AIR APAC publishes about outcomes
The rule does not stop reporting on results as a whole. Section 12.7 states that "AIR APAC publishes outcome rates by track and by market in the annual summary (Section 15.4)". By institution or employer, it publishes them "only in aggregate and never as a comparison".
Section 15.4 requires a fairness summary every year. Where a difference between groups is found, it is published together with the action taken. The Standard adds: "Absence of a published summary in any year is itself a finding."
Why this rule is read with the independence rules
Section 4 holds the provisions that constrain AIR APAC, not the candidate. The rubric is public, and AIR APAC "applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override" (Section 4.1). Certification outcomes are decided by the rules in Section 12 alone, "never by what a candidate or employer bought" (Section 4.3). No assessor, delivery partner, trainer or licensee is paid on a basis that varies with candidate outcomes (Section 4.4).
Plain reading: Section 12.7, like these provisions, limits what AIR APAC itself may do. A result reads one person against published rules, not against other people.
Built by Exeter Labs
Section 4.9 declares the interests of the issuing body. Exeter Labs builds and operates StepSim, AIR APAC's official assessment instrument. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs.
What this does not claim
- It does not describe the AI Readiness Index. The Index rates organisations on public signals under its own method, and publishes organisation scores, tiers and a published order. A certification and an Index position are never convertible (Section 16.1).
- It does not say that results are kept secret. A candidate receives the items listed in Section 12.5, and an employer receives the named results it is entitled to (Section 12.6).
- It does not describe what an employer may do with its named results beyond the terms in Sections 12.6 and 12.11.
- It gives no reason for the rule beyond those the Standard states. The plain readings explain the Standard and do not amend it.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.