Words for fairness: access support, appeal, comment, complaint
Four words in AIRS-J/1 name the routes a person has when something in an assessment seems unfair. Each entry gives the Standard's own wording, a plain reading, and the nearest word it is not the same as.
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1, the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work, assesses it. Four of its words name the routes a person has when something in an assessment seems unfair: access support, appeal, comment and complaint.
Each entry gives the Standard's own wording with its section, then a plain reading. A plain reading explains the wording and is not the Standard's text.
Access support
The Standard's wording, Section 3. "An approved adjustment to presentation, timing or response modality that removes a construct-irrelevant barrier without directing the candidate toward an assessed behaviour."
Section 7.1.1. "An approved access support is recorded in the transcript but imposes no level cap." "It may not reveal a decision path, criterion, consequence or expected response."
Section 8.9. "A candidate may request an access support before assessment and receives a written decision with reasons."
Plain reading. An access support changes the presentation, the timing, or how a candidate gives and receives information, to remove a barrier unrelated to what is assessed. It never shows the candidate what response is expected, and it is recorded in the transcript without limiting the level the candidate can reach. The candidate asks before the assessment and receives a written decision with reasons.
How to ask is set out on the access support page.
Not the same as an appeal. An access support is asked for before an assessment. An appeal asks for a decision already made to be reviewed. A denial of an access support, or a support applied materially wrongly, is itself a ground for appeal (Sections 8.9 and 18.6).
Appeal
The Standard's wording, Section 18.5. "A candidate may appeal a certification-status decision, any employment-grade result released to an employer [...], an accommodation decision that affects access to assessment, or a suspension within 30 days."
The words left out at [...] are a cross-reference to Sections 12.6 and 12.8.
Section 18.5, later in the same clause. "Appeals are reviewed by the appeals reviewer under Section 17 who was not involved in the original decision or delivery." "Appeal is free for the first instance."
Plain reading. An appeal asks for one of four decisions to be reviewed: a certification status, a result released to an employer, an access support decision, or a suspension. The grounds are listed in Section 18.6, among them an anchor applied wrongly, an observation the transcript does not support, a procedural failure and a material technical failure. A reviewer who took no part in the original decision or its delivery looks for such faults; running the scoring rules again is not the review.
How to appeal is set out in the appeals procedure.
Not the same as a comment. An appeal says that something went wrong in one decision, such as an anchor applied wrongly. Disagreement with the anchor itself is a comment, not a ground for appeal (Section 18.6).
Comment
The Standard's wording, Section 18.6. "Disagreement with an anchor itself is not a ground for appeal; it is a comment on the Standard, and is routed to the review board."
Plain reading. An anchor is the Standard's description of the behaviour at one level of a dimension (Section 3). A comment disagrees with an anchor as written, not with how it was applied to one person. It is not decided as an appeal; the Standard routes it to the review board.
Not the same as an appeal. A comment is about an anchor itself, as the Standard writes it. An appeal is about one decision on one candidate, on a ground listed in Section 18.6.
Complaint
The Standard's wording, Section 18.7. "A complaint is distinct from an appeal and may concern service quality, conduct, a delivery partner, an approved instrument, AIR APAC or a certified person."
Section 18.7, last sentence. "A complaint does not change certification status except through the due process in Sections 18.4 to 18.6."
Section 18.5. "A development reading decides nothing and is not appealable; a comment on it is a complaint under Section 18.7."
Plain reading. A complaint is about how something was done or how someone acted: the service, a delivery partner, an approved instrument, AIR APAC itself or a certified person. On its own, a complaint does not change a certification status; it can lead to a change only through the suspension and appeal process of Sections 18.4 to 18.6. A development reading cannot be appealed, so a comment on one is handled as a complaint.
How to make a complaint is set out in the complaints procedure.
Not the same as an appeal. An appeal asks for a decision about a candidate to be reviewed, on a ground in Section 18.6. A complaint concerns service, conduct or one of the parties named in Section 18.7, and follows its own procedure.
One word, two uses: "comment"
The Standard uses the word "comment" in two places. In Section 18.6, disagreement with an anchor itself "is a comment on the Standard, and is routed to the review board". In Section 18.5, a comment on a development reading "is a complaint under Section 18.7". A development reading is "A reading from practice, a training session or a result below Moderate confidence" (Section 3). So a comment on the Standard goes to the review board, and a comment on a development reading is handled as a complaint. This glossary reports both uses as the Standard words them.
What this does not claim
- The plain readings explain the Standard and are not its text. Where a plain reading and the Standard differ, the Standard governs.
- This glossary does not claim that any of the four routes makes an assessment or a result fair. It does not summarise fairness monitoring, which Section 15 of the Standard covers.
- It does not say that any route will change a result, or that an access support makes an assessment easier.
- It does not say which route fits a particular concern. The pages linked above set out the procedures.
- It says nothing about cost beyond the Standard's sentence "Appeal is free for the first instance."
- It does not change or correct any wording of the Standard.
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.