What counts as outside AI tool use during a certifying sitting?
Candidates make decisions using the AI provided inside the assessment, as AIRS-J/1 expects. AI tools outside that environment are prohibited during a certifying session. This page sets out the rule, how a sitting is supervised and what happens if outside use is suspected, in the words of the Standard.
The short answer
Section 9.2 prohibits "use of AI tools outside the provided environment during a certifying session". The AI systems provided within the assessment environment "are expected to be used" (Section 9.2). Declining to use them "is not a virtue and is not scored as caution" (Section 9.2).
The test is whether the tool is part of the provided environment or outside it. The test does not depend on which product the tool is. The Standard does not publish a list of named tools, applications or devices, and this page does not give one.
Outside AI tool use is an AI tool outside the provided environment, used during a certifying session. Section 9.2 states that such use "constitutes misrepresentation under Section 18.4".
When is a candidate told the rule?
Before the sitting starts. Section 9.2 ends: "This is stated to candidates before the session begins."
Why does the Standard treat outside use so seriously?
Section 9 opens with the reason it gives for all its provisions: "A simulation-based credential fails at the point where scenarios leak or identity is unverified. These provisions are load-bearing." In plain words: the credential depends on these provisions holding.
How is a sitting supervised?
Section 9.1 sets the rules for identity and sitting mode.
- Identity. "Candidate identity is verified at the start of each certifying session by a method recorded in the assessment log" (Section 9.1).
- Remote sittings. "Remote sessions require a live check" (Section 9.1).
- Sittings for a hiring decision. An Assessment commissioned for a hiring decision "is sat in person under supervision" (Section 9.1). Remote sittings for hiring open only when the approved instrument records the session, screen and camera, for its duration (Section 9.1).
- Recordings. A recording is integrity evidence under Section 18.4 "and is never a scoring input" (Section 9.1).
What happens if outside use is suspected?
Section 18.4 is written for a credential. The Standard does not say what happens to a sitting in progress when outside use is suspected. For a credential, Section 18.4 sets one process for suspension and revocation:
- Written notice with the specific allegation and the evidence.
- 21 days to respond.
- A decision by a panel of three drawn from the review board.
- Written reasons.
- A right of appeal under Section 18.5.
"The credential remains valid during the process unless the allegation is impersonation" (Section 18.4).
Can a credential be suspended or revoked for outside AI tool use?
Yes. Section 18.4 states that the grounds "are limited to" five:
- impersonation;
- use of external AI tools during a certifying session contrary to Section 9.2;
- possession of leaked scenario content;
- falsification of identity or eligibility;
- material misrepresentation of the credential's meaning after issue.
Outside AI tool use is the second ground on this list.
Can a candidate appeal a suspension or revocation?
Yes. Section 18.5 says a candidate may appeal "a suspension within 30 days". The appeal is reviewed by an appeals reviewer "who was not involved in the original decision or delivery" (Section 18.5). "Outcome and reasoning are provided in writing" (Section 18.5). "Appeal is free for the first instance" (Section 18.5). The grounds for appeal are listed in Section 18.6.
A candidate uses assistive software. Is that an outside tool?
The way to settle this is to ask before the assessment. "A candidate may request an access support before assessment and receives a written decision with reasons" (Section 8.9). An approved access support "is recorded in the transcript but imposes no level cap" (Section 7.1.1). In plain words, an approved access support does not limit the level a candidate can reach.
Whether a particular product is approved is decided on the request. This page cannot say in advance. A denial or a material misapplication of an access support can be appealed (Section 8.9).
Does the rule apply to practice or a training session?
The rule in Section 9.2 is written for "a certifying session". Section 9.2 does not say which AI tools may be used in practice or training, and this page does not say.
What this does not claim
This page gives the rules of AIRS-J/1 v2.3, in force 19 October 2026. It is not a list of banned products. It describes no certifying scenario. It does not say how outside use is detected, or whether help from another person counts. It makes no claim about whether any credential has been issued, suspended or revoked.
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.