What if I think a translation was wrong?

AIRS-J/1 allows the setting and the language of a scenario to be adapted for a market. It does not allow the decisions the scenario asks for to change. These answers cover only the translation ground. Section 18.6 lists the other grounds for appeal.

What counts as a translation defect?

Section 18.6 lists as a ground for appeal "a localisation or translation defect capable of changing the construct-relevant demand". In plain words: a change of wording that could change what the decision asked of the candidate. One example is a translated sentence that leaves out a limit the original sentence stated.

What may be translated or adapted, and what may not?

Section 8.5 says: "Scenario setting, sector, role titles, organisational norms, regulatory context and language may be localised". It continues: "The decision points, the dimensions they elicit, the stakes profile and the anchors applied may not". So a localised scenario may look different from the original. It should still ask the candidate for the same decisions, at the same stakes, read against the same anchors.

What is not a translation defect?

A phrase that reads awkwardly but changed nothing the candidate had to decide is outside the test for a translation defect. Disagreement with an anchor itself is not a ground for appeal either: Section 18.6 says it "is a comment on the Standard, and is routed to the review board". A difficulty with reading in a second language is not a translation defect. Access support is requested before a sitting, and AIR APAC decides each request (Section 8.9). The access support page explains how to ask for it.

What should I write down, and when?

A candidate should write it down as soon as possible after the sitting, while it is still clear in memory. The note should say which part of the scenario it was and the words that caused the problem, as briefly as possible. It should then say what the candidate understood those words to ask, and what the candidate decided because of that reading. Do not publish scenario content. The review considers the transcript (Section 18.5).

How do I raise it?

A candidate raises it as an appeal by the steps under "How to appeal" on this page. The appeal is made within 30 days of the decision, as the appeals page states (Section 18.5). The candidate names the decision and gives the ground as a translation defect under Section 18.6. Appeal is free for the first instance.

Who reviews it, and what do they look at?

The appeals reviewer under Section 17 reviews it, and that person was not involved in the original decision or delivery (Section 18.5). The review considers "the transcript, published anchors, relevant access-support record and applicable procedures" (Section 18.5). "Outcome and reasoning are provided in writing" (Section 18.5).

What happens if the review finds a defect?

The parties who received the result "are sent the decision and, where it changed, the corrected result, which replaces the first for every recipient" (Section 18.5). Outcome and reasoning are provided in writing (Section 18.5). The Standard states no further step for this ground.

My sitting was part of a job application. Does anything change?

An appeal on a result released for hiring is decided within ten working days (Section 18.5). The applicant receives the result no later than the employer. If the applicant lodges the appeal within five working days after release, the commissioning organisation holds any adverse communication that depends on the result until the decision (Sections 18.5, 12.11).

I am the employer, and an applicant says a translation was wrong. What happens on my side?

The appeal belongs to the applicant, who writes to AIR APAC as the appeals page describes (Section 18.5). Every commissioning licence contains a term for this case (Section 12.11). Where an applicant lodges an appeal within five working days of release, "the organisation does not communicate an adverse decision resting on the result until the appeal is decided". If the result changes, the corrected result replaces the first one for the employer as well (Section 18.5).

What if the result was a development reading?

Practice, a training session, a public demonstration, a Provisional result and an Insufficient result are development readings (Section 12.8). Section 18.5 says: "A development reading decides nothing and is not appealable; a comment on it is a complaint under Section 18.7". The complaints procedure explains that route.

Does AIR APAC check translations before they are used?

Localised scenarios "require AIR APAC approval before use in certification" (Section 8.5). Annex A of the Standard lists, as item A17: "Translation and adaptation procedures, before certification in each localised language. Blocks only that language version."

What this does not claim

• It does not say which languages an Assessment is offered in. The Standard names none.
• It does not say that a translation appeal will succeed, or that it will change a result.
• It does not promise a new sitting, a refund or a different form after an appeal is upheld. The Standard states none of these for this ground.
• It does not say how later appeals are charged.
• It adds no time limit to those in Section 18.5.

Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.

Ask AIR APAC: choose the topic "Appeal, complaint or access support".