How does AIR APAC keep certifying scenarios secret?

Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIR APAC certifies people against AIRS-J/1, its Standard for judgment in AI-enabled work. In a certifying Assessment, the candidate works through workplace scenarios and uses the AI provided inside the assessment (Section 9.2).

Section 9 of the Standard opens with the reason the scenarios are protected. It states: "A simulation-based credential fails at the point where scenarios leak or identity is unverified." The controls below follow from that sentence.

What is public, and what is not

The rules are public. Section 4.1 states: "The complete rubric is public and versioned. AIR APAC applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override." The nine dimensions, the anchors for each level (Section 7) and the decision rules are published in full. Any reader can see what an Assessment looks for and how a result is decided.

The certifying scenarios are not public. They are held back from every demonstration and every practice session. Section 4.3 states: "Practice content and certifying content are kept apart (Section 9.3)." Scenarios also differ for each track (Campus, Professional or Practitioner). The dimensions, anchors, thresholds and decision rules do not (Section 13).

How a certifying scenario stays unseen

The Standard sets these rules for certifying scenarios.

An exposure counter. "Each certifying scenario carries an exposure counter" (Section 9.3). In plain terms, AIR APAC keeps a count of how often each scenario has been used.
Two or more forms for each track. Each track maintains "at least two non-overlapping certifying forms of equivalent stakes coverage" (Section 9.4). A form is one version of the certifying Assessment. A candidate who sits again after a Not Certified outcome receives a different form.
Several held-back scenarios in one Assessment. The specification of the official instrument, the system on which the Assessment is taken, sets how many scenarios a certifying Assessment needs. Its rule is at least three held-back scenarios (Section 8.4).
A further unseen scenario when one observation could change the result. Sometimes a change of one level in one observation would move an employment-grade result between Certified and Not Certified. An employment-grade result is one that an employer may use in a hiring or promotion decision (Section 12.8). In that case, AIR APAC offers the candidate one further held-back scenario on an unseen form (Section 12.8.1; the Standard calls it a mission). This happens before the result is released.

When a scenario is exposed

Section 9.3 retires a scenario from certification use in three cases:

its exposure exceeds the published threshold (Section 9.3; this page does not state it);
it appears in public preparation material;
the pattern of results shifts in a way consistent with content leakage.

AIR APAC also monitors for published answers and coaching content. Section 9.5 states that it "treats confirmed leakage as a retirement trigger, not a marketing problem." In plain terms, a confirmed leak leads to the retirement of the scenario. A retired scenario may be released for practice. The Standard requires AIR APAC to publish the list of released practice scenarios (Section 9.3). Trainers and institutions then know which content may be used in practice.

What a candidate is asked to do

The AI provided inside the assessment is there to be used. Use of AI tools outside that environment during a certifying session is prohibited, and candidates are told this before the session begins (Section 9.2). Possession of leaked scenario content is one of the grounds on which a credential may be suspended or revoked (Section 18.4).

What this does not claim

It does not claim that no scenario can ever be seen in advance. The Standard expects that exposure can happen, and it says what AIR APAC does when it does.
It does not claim that the rules are hidden. Only the certifying scenarios are held back. The rubric, the anchors and the decision rules are public (Section 4.1).
It does not claim that practice is closed to candidates. The free AI Fluency course (Level 1) exists, and retired scenarios may be released for practice. A record of practice confers nothing toward certification (Section 20.2).
It gives no number for the exposure threshold, for how many scenarios exist, or for how often they change. The Standard does not state these.
It does not claim that retiring a scenario changes a result already issued. Outside a Campus cohort, the Standard does not say so. For a Campus cohort, Section 13.5 states that where a form is withdrawn for leakage during a sitting window, students already certified keep their credential.

AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.