Who reviews the Standard, and who makes the final decision?
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the Standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, has a review board. This section sets out where its members come from, what the board reviews, what it never decides, and who makes the final decision.
Built by Exeter Labs
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the Standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, has a review board. This section sets out where its members come from, what the board reviews, what it never decides, and who makes the final decision.
Where the board comes from
The Standard states: "The review board is drawn from AIR APAC's standing councils, published at airapac.org/about" (Section 4.2). The board's membership is the councils' published membership (Section 17.1). The membership is therefore public.
The people page lists the proposed board membership, at airapac.org/about/people, under "Governs". This section names no one.
What the board reviews
The Standard sends these matters to the board.
- Every major version. The board reviews every major version of the Standard before it is released (Section 4.2). A major version is a material change to the competency model, the anchors, the evidence requirements or the decision rules (Section 19.2).
- The evidence programme. The board advises on the evidence programme, which is set out in Annex A (Section 4.2).
- Comments on an anchor. An anchor is the published description of what a person does at one level of one dimension (Sections 3 and 7). A person who disagrees with an anchor itself has no ground for appeal. The Standard treats that disagreement as "a comment on the Standard", and it "is routed to the review board" (Section 18.6).
Who decides
The board reviews and advises on the Standard. It does not decide it. The Standard says so in one sentence: "The owner of AIR APAC decides, and holds a veto over the board's recommendations" (Section 4.2). A veto is the power to reject a recommendation.
The board is therefore not independent of the owner. It cannot overrule the owner, and it does not approve AIR APAC.
The Standard keeps a record of disagreement. "Each board member's dissent from a released version is recorded in the version history" (Section 4.2). If the owner releases a version that a member opposed, that dissent remains in the version history.
What the board never decides
- Individual results. "Certification outcomes are decided by the rules in Section 12 alone, never by what a candidate or employer bought" (Section 4.3). The board as a body does not decide results. The Standard draws on individual board members for appeals and suspensions, set out below. The owner of AIR APAC "takes no part in any individual result" (Section 4.3).
- 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).
- Criteria that are not published. "AIR APAC applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override" (Section 4.1). A criterion that is not in the Standard, or in the instrument specification it incorporates, does not exist. A criterion changes only when a new version of the Standard is released (Annex F and Section 19.2).
Interests, appeals and suspensions
- Interests of members. "A member with an interest in a matter before the board declares it and does not advise on it" (Section 17.1).
- The appeals reviewer. An appeal is reviewed by an appeals reviewer. This reviewer may be a board member or an authorised assessor. In either case the reviewer is "not involved in the original decision or delivery, and not employed by or paid through Exeter Labs" (Section 17).
- Suspension. A decision to suspend or revoke a credential is made by a panel of three drawn from the review board. The panel gives written reasons, and the decision can be appealed (Section 18.4).
- The external academic reviewer. This is a separate role from the board. The reviewer is named in Section 17 of the Standard and on the people page.
- Interests of the issuing body. The Standard declares the interests of AIR APAC itself in Section 4.9. Exeter Labs builds and operates StepSim, AIR APAC's official assessment instrument. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs.
The wider responsibilities under the Standard are set out at airapac.org/standard/governance.
How findings reach the Standard
Monitoring can show that a claim in the Standard needs to be stronger. In that case, AIR APAC acts on it in the next release. It "fixes the instrument, the rule or the anchor, and the validation report records what changed" (Section 4.8). The validation report is published as the checks in the Standard are met. Where the fix is a major version, the board reviews it before release (Section 4.2).
What this does not claim
- The board is advisory on the Standard. The owner of AIR APAC decides and holds a veto over its recommendations (Section 4.2).
- The board is not an outside body that approves AIR APAC or the Standard. Its members come from AIR APAC's own standing councils.
- No ISO conformity is claimed for the board, the Standard or AIR APAC.
- The board does not certify anyone. Certification follows the published rules in Section 12.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.