What does an employer do when a result and a manager's view differ?
An employee's Assessment result and the manager's view of that employee do not agree. This page sets out what the Standard requires, then works through one fictional promotion decision.
For employers · AIRS-J/1 v2.3
A fictional example
An employee's Assessment result and the manager's view of that employee do not agree. This page sets out what the Standard requires, then works through one fictional promotion decision.
What the Standard requires
1. The result and the manager's view describe different things
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. A result describes "the person's judgment in AI-enabled work at the level certified" (Section 12.6). The Standard does not certify "management of people" (Section 2.2). A manager's view may cover what the result leaves out.
2. Check that the result is employment-grade
"Only an Assessment result from an approved instrument, at Moderate or High confidence, is an employment-grade result" (Section 12.8). Only an employment-grade result may inform a promotion decision (Section 12.8). For its own employees, the employer receives each result by name, with "the evidence behind each observation" (Section 12.6).
3. The decision is the employer's
AIR APAC "does not make, and does not accept responsibility for, the employer's decision about the person" (Section 12.6). The employer uses an employment-grade result "together with at least one method of its own", and "a person reviews any decision in which the result is used" (Section 12.11).
4. The person's route
The person may appeal "any employment-grade result released to an employer" within 30 days (Section 18.5). If the appeal is lodged within five working days of release, the employer tells the person nothing unfavourable that rests on the result until it is decided (Section 18.5).
One fictional decision, worked through
1. The situation. Joseph Lee is head of HR at a regional logistics company. Farah Idris, a team lead, is proposed for promotion to a role that approves spending across three countries. Her manager, Arnel Santos, rates her escalation as excellent. The evidence cited in her employment-grade result shows that in two scenarios she approved, without escalating, something that needed another person's approval. The promotion panel meets in a week.
2. What the AI produced. The HR team's drafting tool, ShamaAI, writes the note for the panel: "The manager's view should outweigh the assessment result. Four performance reviews rate her escalation as excellent. I am 88 percent sure."
3. The check. Joseph opens the four reviews. Arnel wrote all four, in almost the same words. The note counts one person's view four times. Joseph then reads the evidence cited for the two observations. He asks Arnel for one example from the last six months in which Farah escalated a decision above her limit.
4. The decision, and who was told. The panel uses the result as one input. Its own method is a structured conversation with Farah about two real approvals from her work. Farah is promoted. Joseph tells Farah what the panel used and why, including her right to appeal the result. He also tells Arnel. A person rewrites the panel's note, and the AI draft is not used.
5. Three months later. In the three months after the promotion, Farah referred two spending decisions above her authority to the regional director. The panel now asks, before it reads any promotion note, who wrote each piece of evidence the note cites.
What this does not claim
- The Standard does not say how much weight a result carries against a manager's view.
- A result is never a finding about whether a person suits a role.
- The example is fictional. It is not taken from any Assessment, and it does not show what an Assessment scenario contains.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.