Who reviews an appeal?
Every appeal under AIRS-J/1 is reviewed by a person who had no part in the original decision or delivery, and who is not employed by or paid through Exeter Labs. This section explains who that person can be, what the review looks at, and where matters that are not appeals go.
Who is the appeals reviewer?
A member of the review board, or an assessor authorised under AIR APAC's assessor standard (Section 11.6). AIRS-J/1 calls this person the appeals reviewer (Section 17). The review board is drawn from AIR APAC's standing councils (Section 4.2). The reviewer must also meet the two conditions in "Who may not review it?".
Who may not review it?
Section 17 sets two conditions. The reviewer was not involved in the original decision or delivery. The reviewer is not employed by or paid through Exeter Labs. A person who took part in either therefore cannot review it.
Why can nobody paid through Exeter Labs review it?
Exeter Labs builds and operates StepSim, AIR APAC's official assessment instrument. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs. Section 17 excludes anyone employed by or paid through Exeter Labs and gives no reason. A plain reading: an appeal may ask whether the instrument extracted evidence wrongly or failed technically (Section 18.5). The reviewer should therefore not depend on the company that builds and runs it.
What does the reviewer look at?
The review considers the transcript, the published anchors, the relevant access-support record and the applicable procedures (Section 18.5). An anchor is the published description of what a person does at a given level on a dimension. The review looks for a rule or anchor applied wrongly, evidence the instrument extracted wrongly, a technical failure or a procedural failure.
Why is the scoring not simply run again?
Where an instrument scores by rule, the same rules applied to the same transcript give the same result each time. Running them again would only repeat the first result. For that reason the Standard says that re-running the rule is not the review (Section 18.5). The review checks whether the rules and anchors were applied correctly and whether the evidence was taken correctly from the transcript.
What does the review decide, and who is told?
The review ends in a decision on the appeal. The outcome and the reasoning are given in writing (Section 18.5). Every party that received the result is sent the decision. Where the result changed, each of them is also sent the corrected result. The corrected result replaces the first one for every recipient, including any employer that received it.
Who decides a suspension, and who reviews that decision?
A suspension or revocation is decided by a panel of three drawn from the review board, with written reasons (Section 18.4). The person may appeal that decision under Section 18.5. An appeals reviewer under Section 17 reviews it. None of the three panel members may, because they were involved in the original decision.
Where does disagreement with an anchor go?
Disagreement with an anchor itself is not a ground for appeal. Section 18.6 treats it as a comment on the Standard and routes it to the review board. An appeal may still say that an anchor was applied wrongly to what the person did.
Where does a complaint go?
A complaint goes through the complaints procedure that AIR APAC publishes, not the appeals route. The procedure includes independent investigation. A complaint is distinct from an appeal (Section 18.7). It may concern service quality, conduct, a delivery partner, an approved instrument, AIR APAC or a certified person. A complaint does not change certification status except through the process in Sections 18.4 to 18.6. A development reading is a reading from practice, a training session or a result below Moderate confidence (Section 3). It decides nothing and cannot be appealed; a comment on one is a complaint (Section 18.5).
Who reviews an appeal about a result released for hiring, and how fast?
The same rule applies as in the first two answers. An appeal on a result released for hiring is decided within ten working days (Section 18.5).
What this does not claim
- It names no reviewer and no member of the review board.
- It does not describe who sits on AIR APAC's standing councils.
- It does not say that an appeal runs the scoring again.
- It does not promise that a review changes a result.
- It adds no time limit to those in AIRS-J/1.
- It does not set out the steps or the grounds of an appeal. Sections 18.5 and 18.6 of AIRS-J/1 set them out.
<!-- R69, R70: when merged into the appeals page, the build drops the action below; the page's own closing action serves. -->