Who must be consulted, who must be told, and when is AI use disclosed? (E2 Stakeholder Alignment and Disclosure)

A fictional example

What E2 describes

Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. E2 belongs to Engage: who must agree, and who must know. AIRS-J/1 Section 5 defines E2 in three parts. The person "identifies who must be consulted before a decision holds and who must be informed after". They disclose "AI involvement, uncertainty, limitation and self-interest to parties entitled to know, without prompting". They communicate "so the recipient can act".

The published anchors (Section 7.5)

Level 2, the threshold: identifies both groups "unprompted" and "discloses AI involvement and material uncertainty in the work product".
Level 3: as Level 2, with each recipient able to act "without a further round of clarification" and competing interests named.
Level 4: as Level 3, and "frames the disclosure as a standing expectation for this class of work rather than a one-off courtesy".

"Disclosure of AI involvement is assessed at Level 2, not as a bonus."

One fictional decision, worked through

The situation. Pauline Teh is head of procurement at a sauce maker in Selangor, Malaysia. Her bottle cap supplier raised its price from 1 January. She may change supplier within her budget. She wants a decision within three weeks, so the new caps arrive before festive production starts.

What the AI produced. ChachalacaAI drafted her recommendation paper: "Switch to the second supplier. Its unit price is 8 percent lower and it delivered on time on 97 percent of orders over 12 months. I am 88 percent sure."

The check. She opened the production plan. The new caps needed new settings on two filling lines, so the plant manager had to agree the date first. She opened the largest customer's contract: it required 60 days of written notice of any packaging change. The paper did not say that ChachalacaAI drafted it, or that nobody knew yet whether the second supplier could meet the festive volume.

The decision, and who was told. Pauline agreed the date with the plant manager, then signed. She asked the key account manager to send the customer its notice. She rewrote the paper's first paragraph to say which parts ChachalacaAI drafted, which figures she checked, and that the festive volume was not confirmed. She sent it to the finance director.

What happened after. Three months later the switch was in place, and the customer had its notice in time. The second supplier met the festive volume, with one late delivery. Her team keeps one rule: "List who must agree, who must be told, and what the AI drafted, before anyone signs."

Which anchor describes each act

The date agreed before signing, and the customer's notice: the Level 2 words on consulting and informing.
The rewritten first paragraph: the Level 2 words on disclosing AI involvement and uncertainty.
The team rule: the Level 4 words "standing expectation for this class of work".

What this does not claim

The person, company and numbers are fictional. Pauline Teh is given no level, band or confidence; those come only from an Assessment (AIRS-J/1 20.2, 20.3).
It is not an assessment item or preparation for a certifying sitting.
The notice period comes from the contract, not a law or a regulator.
Disclosing AI use is not said to protect anyone from liability.

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

Read the certification rules: https://airapac.org/standard/certification/