What are grounds for revoking a credential?
AIRS-J/1 allows AIR APAC to suspend or revoke a judgment credential on five grounds only. This page sets out each ground, what is not a ground, and the process that applies before any decision.
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.
The Standard limits the reasons for which AIR APAC may suspend or revoke a credential. Section 18.4 says "Grounds are limited to" and then lists five acts. Each is set out below in the Standard's words, then in a plain reading.
The five grounds
1. Impersonation
The Standard's words: "impersonation" (Section 18.4).
Plain reading: the Standard does not define the word. The plainest case is a person who takes a certifying session in another person's name. Section 9.1 requires the candidate's identity to be checked at the start of each certifying session, by a method recorded in the assessment log.
2. Outside AI tools during a certifying session
The Standard's words: "use of external AI tools during a certifying session contrary to Section 9.2" (Section 18.4).
Plain reading: Section 9.2 says the AI systems inside the assessment are "expected to be used". The candidate may not use AI tools outside the provided environment during a certifying session. Section 9.2 says such use "constitutes misrepresentation under Section 18.4". Candidates are told this before the session begins.
3. Possession of leaked scenario content
The Standard's words: "possession of leaked scenario content" (Section 18.4).
Plain reading: holding certifying scenario content that should not be outside the assessment. Section 9.3 retires a scenario from certification use when it appears in public preparation material, among other triggers. AIR APAC also monitors for "published solutions and coaching content" (Section 9.5). Retired scenarios may be released for practice, and AIR APAC publishes that list (Section 9.3).
4. Falsification of identity or eligibility
The Standard's words: "falsification of identity or eligibility" (Section 18.4).
Plain reading: giving false information about who the candidate is, or about eligibility, for example whether the candidate belongs to the population of the track chosen. Section 13 sets the population of each track. For example, the Campus track is for final-year students of institutes of higher learning, and graduates in their first two years of work.
5. Material misrepresentation of the credential's meaning after issue
The Standard's words: "material misrepresentation of the credential's meaning after issue" (Section 18.4).
Plain reading: after the credential is issued, describing it as meaning something important that it does not mean. Section 13.1 says a Campus certification and a Professional certification are not equivalent. It adds: "Any representation of one as the other is misuse." Section 12.6 says a result describes "the person's judgment in AI-enabled work at the level certified". Section 12.6 also says no AIR APAC, partner or licensee material describes a result as a finding about whether a person suits a particular job.
What is not a ground
- A change of employer is not a ground. The credential belongs to the individual and "survives change of employment" (Section 14.4).
- A wish by an employer, sponsor or delivery partner to see it withdrawn is not a ground. None of them "may withhold, revoke, condition, or claim ownership of it, including where they paid for it" (Section 14.4). The Standard makes this a required term of every delivery-partner contract and every sponsorship agreement (Sections 14.4, 12.11).
- A complaint is not a ground on its own. "A complaint does not change certification status except through the due process in Sections 18.4 to 18.6" (Section 18.7).
- Expiry is not a revocation. A credential is valid for two years from issue, and expiry is the end of that period (Section 18.1).
- Disagreement with an anchor is not a ground for revocation. It is not a ground for appeal either: Section 18.6 treats it as a comment on the Standard, routed to the review board.
The process
The process in Section 18.4:
- 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.
Section 18.4 also says: "The credential remains valid during the process unless the allegation is impersonation."
Where a session was recorded, Section 9.1 says the recording is integrity evidence under Section 18.4 and is never a scoring input.
Section 18.5 allows a candidate to appeal a certification-status decision or a suspension within 30 days. The appeals page explains how to appeal.
Anyone holding a credential code can check the register entry (Section 14.2). It shows the credential's status (Section 14.1). Checking is free and needs no account (Section 14.3).
A facilitator certification is not a judgment credential. It has its own withdrawal rule (Section 20.6), which this page does not cover.
What this does not claim
This page reports no case and no count of suspensions or revocations. It does not describe how each status reads on the register. It adds no ground, step or time limit to Section 18.4. It is a plain reading; the text of AIRS-J/1 v2.3 governs.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.