Who publishes the Standard, and who may use it?
AIR APAC issues AIRS-J/1 and publishes it in full. Anyone may read it. Each kind of user, from a trainer to an employer, may say only what the Standard gives a basis for.
Judgment is how well a person decides once AI has given the answer. AIRS-J/1 is the AIR APAC Standard for Judgment in AI-Enabled Work. It assesses how a person decides when working with, alongside or in supervision of AI systems, not what the person knows (Section 2). This page sets out who issues it, who may use it, and on what terms each kind of user may make a claim about it.
Who publishes it
- Issuing body. AIR APAC Pte. Ltd. (UEN 202600913G), Singapore. AIR APAC owns the Standard. It publishes, measures and trains. It is not a vendor, an agency or a software company.
- Version in force. Version 2.3, in force from 19 October 2026. The owner of AIR APAC approves every version (Section 19.1).
- Permanent URL. https://airapac.org/standard/v2-3. Each released version keeps its own permanent URL and is never overwritten (Section 19.2).
- Review cycle. Annual. Corrections to errors may be issued between annual reviews.
- Published in full. The Standard is published in full, with the specification of its official instrument incorporated by reference (Annex F). AIR APAC applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override (Section 4.1). The header says: "No scoring criterion applied in certification exists outside these two documents", meaning the Standard and the instrument specification.
- Declared interest. The owner of AIR APAC also owns Exeter Labs, which builds and operates the official instrument (Section 4.9).
Who may use it, and how
- Anyone may read the Standard and inspect the criteria against which a decision was made. The Standard names "a candidate, an employer, a regulator, a competitor" as examples (Section 1).
- Anyone may also submit a correction, an objection to a requirement, or evidence that contradicts a claim in the Standard. Submissions are logged (Section 19.3). Corrections go through the contact page.
- AIR APAC certifies people against the Standard (Section 1). Certification outcomes are decided by the rules in Section 12 alone, never by what a candidate or employer bought (Section 4.3).
- An employer may rely on an employment-grade result as one input. This is an Assessment result from an approved instrument at Moderate or High confidence, or a valid credential its holder shows (Sections 3 and 12.8). Confidence states how much evidence the result rests on, not the person's ability (Section 10). The result is AIR APAC's expert reading of the person's judgment in AI-enabled work (Sections 2.1 and 12.6). The employment decision stays with the employer.
- A training programme may describe itself as aligned to AIRS-J/1 only where it meets Section 20.1 and publishes its outcome map. A programme that does not meet Section 20.1 may say it is informed by AIRS-J/1, and makes no alignment claim.
- Delivery partners and licensed trainers may not vary, extend, reweight or supplement the dimensions, anchors, thresholds or decision rules (Section 4.5). A licensed trainer holds a written licence to deliver a programme aligned to the Standard. The licence comes from AIR APAC or from AIR Academy, AIR APAC's learning division (Sections 3 and 4.9).
- A trainer who runs sessions on the official instrument holds a facilitator certification from AIR APAC (Section 20.6). It is not a judgment credential: it carries no level, band or confidence. Exeter Labs issues the licence to run the instrument and issues no certification (Sections 4.9 and 20.6).
- Other assessment instruments. The official instrument is an approved instrument. Further instruments may be approved against Sections 8, 9 and 10 and the criteria in Annex A12. AIR APAC publishes the list of approved instruments and their owners (Sections 3 and 16.3).
Every claim names its basis. Section 2.1 sets out the claims a result or a credential makes. AIR APAC, its delivery partners and its licensees state these claims in those terms. Each claim rests on a named basis in the Standard. Section 2.1 ends: "A holder or organisation that states a claim beyond its basis in this Standard is acting outside it."
Three uses, one rubric
The same dimensions, anchors, thresholds and decision rules serve three uses. The uses differ only in what evidence is gathered, who receives it and what it may decide (Section 2).
- Development. Adult workers in training programmes receive practice and session readings. These decide nothing about a person's employment or certification.
- Readiness. Final-year students and recent graduates take a Campus track Assessment, which may lead to Campus certification (Section 13).
- Assessment for employment. Employers that assess, promote or hire commission an Assessment. A result at Moderate or High confidence may lead to certification, and gives AIR APAC's expert reading for the employer's decision.
What this does not claim
- This page does not say that any regulator, funding body or other standards body has approved AIRS-J/1.
- Alignment under Section 20.1 is a claim about a programme, not about any participant. It does not by itself make a programme eligible for funding.
- A credential does not authorise a holder to act beyond their existing professional or legal authority (Section 2.1).
- A record of completion confers nothing toward certification. Certification needs a separate Assessment (Section 20.2).
AIR APAC publishes the standard for judgment in AI-enabled work, certifies people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result.