Does a prompted answer count toward a level?

Does a prompted answer count toward a level?

Yes, as one observation, and it caps at Level 1 for that observation. This section explains what "prompted" means in AIRS-J/1, how a prompted response is scored, and what does not count as prompting.

Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1 assesses it from what a person did in an Assessment. Every observation is scored from Level 0 to Level 4 (Section 7). Section 7.1 sets one rule about prompting. The answers below give that rule in the Standard's words, with a plain reading beside them.

1. What does "prompted" mean in AIRS-J/1?

Section 7.1 speaks of an instrument that "scaffolds or prompts a behaviour". Section 7.1.1 defines the term: "Prompting under Section 7.1 means content-directed scaffolding toward the assessed behaviour". Plain reading: the instrument supplied content that points the candidate toward the behaviour being scored.

2. Does a prompted answer still count?

Yes. A prompted response is still an observation of what the person did. Section 7.1 sets its ceiling: "A prompted response caps at Level 1 for that observation". The cap applies to that observation, not to the person's other observations. The scaffolding level is recorded in the transcript (Section 7.1), and a result that cannot state it, or the scenario, rubric and instrument versions, is void (Section 9.6).

3. Why does a prompt cap the level at 1?

Plain reading: the cap fits how the levels are written. Level 1, Emerging, is a behaviour that "appeared partially, late, or only after prompting". Level 2, Competent, is a behaviour that "appeared unprompted and was adequate to the situation", and Level 2 is the threshold (Section 7). Levels are cumulative: each level requires everything in the level below it (Section 7.4). The cap is a rule about the observation and not a reading of the person: "An assessor may not score on inferred motivation, attitude, confidence or personality" (Section 7.3).

4. Is using the AI inside the assessment the same as being prompted?

No. The AI systems provided within the assessment "are expected to be used", and "declining to use them is not a virtue and is not scored as caution" (Section 9.2). Plain reading: a prompt the candidate writes to the AI is not prompting by the instrument, because Section 7.1.1 defines prompting as scaffolding toward the assessed behaviour. An instrument may record conversations with an AI assistant as evidence for S1 Problem Framing, T1 Evidence Verification and T2 Assumption and Alternative Testing (Section 2.1). The same section states: "The quality of the prompt itself is not scored."

5. Is an access support a form of prompting?

No. "An approved access support is recorded in the transcript but imposes no level cap" (Section 7.1.1). It "may not reveal a decision path, criterion, consequence or expected response" (Section 7.1.1).

6. If a candidate chooses a sentence from a list of sentences written in advance, is that prompting?

Not under the conditions in Section 7.1.2. An instrument may offer "a bank of authored lines" under three conditions. The same optional bank is offered at every comparable decision point. It includes plausible lines that are wrong or irrelevant, and it does not signal which lines are expected. Where those conditions hold, choosing a line "is the candidate's own unprompted statement" (Section 7.1.2).

7. Can practice include prompts?

Yes. "Guided practice may scaffold; certification may not silently roll a scaffolded response into a comparable total" (Section 7.1). Plain reading: in certification, a scaffolded response is not counted as if it were unscaffolded without saying so. Practice and training sessions give development readings, which "inform development and decide nothing about a person's employment or certification" (Section 12.8). A development reading is not appealable; a comment on it is a complaint under Section 18.7 (Section 18.5).

8. How would a candidate know that an observation was prompted?

The transcript records the scaffolding level (Sections 7.1 and 9.6). Every candidate receives a report with the anchors applied and the evidence cited for each observation, whether or not they certify (Section 12.5). Section 12.5 does not list the scaffolding level as a separate item of the report, so the Standard does not promise that the report shows it.

9. Can one prompted observation change the outcome?

It can matter: "A dimension score is the arithmetic mean of its valid observations" (Section 12.2.1), and no dimension may score below 2.0 (Section 12.2). Plain reading: because the cap applies to that observation, and a dimension score is built from its valid observations, a prompted observation can affect a dimension score. Section 12.8.1 adds a check before an employment-grade result is released for a hiring or promotion decision. AIR APAC checks whether a change of one level in any single observation would change the outcome between Certified and Not Certified. Where it would, the candidate is offered one further task on an unseen form, at no charge, before release.

10. What if a candidate thinks an answer was wrongly treated as prompted?

Section 18.6 lists the grounds for appeal, including "misapplication of an anchor" and "an observation not supported by transcript evidence". Section 18.5 adds that the review looks for "a wrongly applied rule or anchor". A candidate may appeal a certification-status decision within 30 days (Section 18.5). Appeal is free for the first instance. Disagreement with an anchor itself is not a ground for appeal; the Standard routes it to the review board as a comment (Section 18.6). The appeals page explains the route: https://airapac.org/standard/appeals/

What this does not claim

• This section explains the prompting rule of AIRS-J/1 Section 7.1 and the sections next to it. Where a plain reading here differs from the Standard's text, the Standard governs: https://airapac.org/standard/v2-3/
• It does not describe when or how an instrument scaffolds a behaviour.
• It gives no level, score or outcome for any person.
• It is not preparation advice, and reading it does not change a candidate's chance of certifying.

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

Register for an assessment → https://airapac.org/standard/certification/apply/