What if the transcript does not support an observation?
Every observation in an AIRS-J/1 result must point to evidence in the transcript. This section explains what a candidate can see, ask for and appeal when one does not, and what an employer does while the appeal is decided.
An AIRS-J/1 result reads the decisions a candidate made during an Assessment. Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the standard AIR APAC publishes for judgment in AI-enabled work, assesses it from those decisions, one observation at a time.
Each observation must point to evidence in the transcript. The questions below are the ones a candidate and an employer ask when an observation does not seem to match what the candidate did. Each answer quotes AIRS-J/1 v2.3, in force from 19 October 2026, with the section number. The Standard's own text governs: https://airapac.org/standard/v2-3/
What is an observation, and what must it rest on?
An observation is "a single scored instance of one dimension, arising from one assessed decision point, supported by identified evidence in the transcript" (Section 3).
It must rest on evidence that can be pointed at. Section 8.8 states: "Every observation must be traceable to identified evidence in the transcript. An observation whose evidence cannot be pointed at does not exist."
Scoring follows the same rule. When an approved instrument scores by published rules, "every level cites the events and the rule that produced it" (Section 11.4).
What is the transcript, and what is never used for scoring?
The transcript is "the complete retained evidence record of an assessment instance, from which every observation must be independently derivable" (Section 3).
It holds "the full decision trace: decisions, artifacts, sources consulted, stated rationale, revisions and timings" (Section 8.7).
Keystroke capture, affect inference, video analysis and biometric signals "are never scoring inputs" (Section 8.7). The Standard reads what a person did, which can be shown to that person and explained.
How can I see the evidence behind an observation?
The candidate's report carries it. Every candidate receives "the anchors applied" and "the evidence cited for each observation", whether or not they certify (Section 12.5).
A candidate may also "obtain their own transcript and result" (Section 14.5). The candidate can then compare the evidence cited for an observation with the full record of what they did.
What if the transcript itself holds a factual error?
That is a request for correction, a separate right from an appeal. A candidate may "request correction of factual errors" in their transcript and result (Section 14.5). Write to AIR APAC through the contact page: https://airapac.org/contact/
Is "the transcript does not support it" a ground for appeal?
Yes. Section 18.6 lists "an observation not supported by transcript evidence" as one of the grounds for appeal.
A candidate may appeal a certification-status decision, or an employment-grade result released to an employer, within 30 days (Section 18.5). The appeal names the decision and the ground in Section 18.6 that applies. The steps, the contact topic and the response times are in "How to appeal": https://airapac.org/standard/appeals/
Is an appeal free?
"Appeal is free for the first instance" (Section 18.5).
Who reviews the appeal, and what do they look at?
The appeals reviewer is a review board member or an authorised assessor under Section 11.6. The reviewer was "not involved in the original decision or delivery" and is "not employed by or paid through Exeter Labs" (Section 17). AIR APAC names the reviewer in its written acknowledgement of the appeal (appeals page).
The review "considers the transcript, published anchors, relevant access-support record and applicable procedures" (Section 18.5).
Rule-based scoring is deterministic, so "re-running the rule is not the review" (Section 18.5). The review looks for "a wrongly applied rule or anchor, evidence the instrument extracted wrongly, a technical failure, or a procedural failure".
What if I disagree with the anchor, not the evidence?
Then the route is a comment, not an appeal. "Disagreement with an anchor itself is not a ground for appeal; it is a comment on the Standard, and is routed to the review board" (Section 18.6).
An appeal may still ask whether an anchor was applied correctly to the evidence. "Misapplication of an anchor" is a ground under Section 18.6. A comment asks whether the anchor itself should change.
What happens when the appeal is decided?
"Outcome and reasoning are provided in writing" (Section 18.5). The appeals page gives the response time.
The parties who received the result are sent the decision. Where the result changed, they are also sent the corrected result, "which replaces the first for every recipient" (Section 18.5).
I applied for a job. How fast is the appeal decided?
"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 (Section 18.5).
If the appeal is lodged within five working days of release, the commissioning organisation holds any adverse communication resting on the result until the decision (Section 18.5). The hold is tied to that five-day window.
I am the employer. What do I do while the appeal runs?
The Standard requires a set of terms in every licence under which an organisation commissions assessments (Section 12.11). One term covers appeals. If an applicant appeals within five working days of release, the organisation does not communicate an adverse decision that rests on the result. It waits until the appeal is decided.
Two other terms of Section 12.11 apply at all times. No hiring, promotion or appraisal decision rests on the result alone. A person reviews any decision in which the result is used.
The employment decision stays the organisation's own. If the appeal changes the result, the organisation receives the corrected result, and it replaces the first (Section 18.5).
Can I appeal a reading from a practice session?
No. "A development reading decides nothing and is not appealable; a comment on it is a complaint under Section 18.7" (Section 18.5).
A development reading comes from practice, a training session or a result below Moderate confidence (Section 3). Section 18.7 states that a complaint "is distinct from an appeal". AIR APAC publishes a procedure for complaints.
What this does not claim
- It does not say that an appeal on this ground will succeed, or that a level, band or certification status will change.
- It does not describe a second scoring. Re-running the rule is not the review (Section 18.5).
- It does not say that a model decides an appeal. The appeals reviewer is a person, defined by role in Section 17.
- It does not say that an employer must reverse a decision already made. Section 12.11 sets a hold on communication while an appeal runs.
- It sets no time limit beyond those in Section 18.5 and on the appeals page.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.
Read the certification rules: https://airapac.org/standard/certification/