How are scenarios changed over time?
A certifying scenario is not used for ever. This FAQ sets out, in the words of AIRS-J/1, when a scenario is retired or localised, and what the Standard records about versions.
Why does a certifying scenario not stay in use for ever?
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1 is the standard AIR APAC publishes for judgment in AI-enabled work. A certifying Assessment reads judgment from what a candidate does in scenarios. Practice content and certifying content are kept apart (Section 4.3).
The Standard gives its reason in the opening of Section 9: "A simulation-based credential fails at the point where scenarios leak or identity is unverified."
So each certifying scenario "carries an exposure counter" (Section 9.3). A scenario is retired from certification use in three cases (Section 9.3):
- "when exposure exceeds the published threshold";
- "when it appears in public preparation material";
- "when performance distribution shifts in a manner consistent with content leakage".
Plain reading: too many people have seen it, it appears in public preparation material, or the pattern of results is consistent with candidates having seen the content in advance.
What happens to a retired scenario?
"Retired scenarios may be released for practice" (Section 9.3). The Standard requires AIR APAC to publish the list of released practice scenarios, "so that trainers and institutions know which content may be used in practice" (Section 9.3).
Where is the exposure threshold published?
Section 9.3 refers to "the published threshold" and gives no number. The number is in the official instrument's specification, which Annex F incorporates in the Standard.
Built by Exeter Labs
The official instrument of AIRS-J/1 is StepSim (Section 8.1). Exeter Labs builds and operates StepSim, AIR APAC's official assessment instrument. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs. StepSim's instrument specification publishes the threshold. This FAQ does not repeat the number.
What happens if scenario content leaks or is coached?
AIR APAC monitors for published answers to scenarios and for coaching content (Section 9.5). It "treats confirmed leakage as a retirement trigger, not a marketing problem" (Section 9.5). Confirmed leakage therefore retires the scenario from certification use.
A candidate who holds leaked content also puts a credential at risk. One of the grounds for suspension or revocation is "possession of leaked scenario content" (Section 18.4).
Do two candidates sit the same scenarios?
Not always. "Each track maintains at least two non-overlapping certifying forms of equivalent stakes coverage" (Section 9.4). Plain reading: a form is one set of certifying scenarios. "A candidate reassessing after a Not Certified outcome receives a different form" (Section 9.4). The same published rubric applies to every form (Section 4.1). The Standard does not say how a first sitting is allocated to a form.
Built by Exeter Labs
As at 24 October 2026, StepSim's published specification says that a second, parallel form does not exist yet. It lists the scenarios for that form as work still to be built (section 7.3). This page states the Standard's requirement. It does not say that the requirement is met today.
Parallel forms and the exposure threshold are item A6 in Annex A. Annex A is the Standard's evidence programme: items that run alongside certification and strengthen it. Progress on that programme is recorded in the validation report (Section 11.7).
Can a scenario be set in a candidate's own country or sector?
The Standard allows it, within limits. "Scenario setting, sector, role titles, organisational norms, regulatory context and language may be localised" (Section 8.5). "The decision points, the dimensions they elicit, the stakes profile and the anchors applied may not" (Section 8.5).
"Localised scenarios require AIR APAC approval before use in certification" (Section 8.5). The Standard permits contextual localisation of scenario content, not localisation of criteria (Section 4.5).
What is a role edition?
A track may have role editions, "whose scenarios are set in the work of one role family (for example software delivery, finance operations or public service)" (Section 13.3).
"A role edition uses the same dimensions, anchors, thresholds and decision rules; only the scenario content differs" (Section 13.3). AIR APAC approves a role edition before certification use, and each role edition "has its own parallel forms" (Section 13.3). A result from a role edition names the edition on the report, the credential and the register entry.
How does a reader know which version a result was earned on?
Section 9.6 requires every transcript to record the scenario version, the rubric version, the instrument version and the scaffolding level. It adds: "A result that cannot state these is void."
The public register records the standard version and, where one is used, the role edition (Section 14.1). It does not record stakes profiles or any transcript content (Section 14.1). The register does not show the scenario version. A candidate may obtain their own transcript (Section 14.5).
Does a change to a scenario change the rules?
No. Scenario content may be localised or set in one role family, and the dimensions, anchors and decision rules stay the same (Sections 8.5 and 13.3).
A change to the instrument specification that changes a rule "is released with a new version of this Standard" (Annex F). Material changes to the competency model, the anchors, the evidence requirements or the decision rules "are released as v3.0" (Section 19.2). Each released version "keeps a permanent URL and is never overwritten" (Section 19.2).
What happens to a credential when the Standard changes?
"A credential issued under an earlier version remains valid to its expiry and is displayed with its version designation" (Section 18.3). AIR APAC "publishes a plain statement of what changed between versions so a reader can interpret an older credential" (Section 18.3).
Can a scenario be withdrawn for fairness?
A part of a scenario can be. AIR APAC screens decision points and observations for differential functioning where the data support that analysis (Section 15.3). "A component showing group-differential performance not explained by the construct is withdrawn pending review" (Section 15.3).
Plain reading: one group of candidates may do worse on part of a scenario for a reason unrelated to what the Standard assesses. That part is then taken out of use while it is reviewed. Where monitoring shows a claim needs strengthening, AIR APAC fixes the instrument, the rule or the anchor in the next release (Section 4.8).
What this does not claim
This page does not state:
- how often scenarios are retired or replaced, or how many certifying scenarios exist;
- the exposure threshold as a number;
- when a retired scenario is replaced, or when a scenario receives a new version;
- that both parallel forms required by Section 9.4 exist today;
- that StepSim records all four items of Section 9.6 today;
- that a candidate can learn in advance which scenario they will sit, or see one before the Assessment.
This page is not preparation material. 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.