AIR APAC Standard for Managerial Judgment in AI-Enabled Work
Designation: AIRS-J/1 Version: 2.0 Status: Approved by the owner of AIR APAC and by the review board (Sections 4.2 and 17) on 2026-10-03. Released on 2026-10-05 together with StepSim, the official instrument (Section 16.3). It supersedes v1.1, which keeps its permanent URL. Its own permanent URL is https://airapac.org/standard/v2-0. Certification is open. Issuing body: AIR APAC Pte. Ltd. (UEN 202600913G), Singapore Effective date: 2026-10-05 (v1.1: 2026-10-01; v1.0: 2026-08-19) Review cycle: Annual, with interim errata permitted Public rubric: This document is published in full, with the official instrument's specification incorporated by reference in Annex F. No scoring criterion applied in certification exists outside these two documents.
Status of this edition. Version 2.0 moves AIRS-J/1 from a published specification to an operating certification. AIR APAC is the judgment authority: it defines what good judgment in AI-enabled work looks like, assesses people against it through its official instrument, and stands behind every result. The evidence programme in Annex A runs alongside certification and strengthens it with every assessment; it no longer holds certification back. Compatible refinements are issued as v2.x, material changes to the competency model, anchors or decision rules as v3.0.
1. Purpose§
This Standard defines the competency model, rubric, evidence requirements and decision rules used by AIR APAC to certify individual judgment in AI-enabled work.
It exists so that:
- A certified individual holds a portable credential whose meaning does not depend on their employer.
- Two individuals assessed in different organisations, countries or delivery settings receive comparable results.
- Any party (a candidate, an employer, a regulator, a competitor) can inspect the criteria against which a decision was made.
- An employer can rely on an expert, independent reading of a person's judgment when it develops, assesses, promotes or hires them.
Comparability is the governing design constraint. Where customisation and comparability conflict, this Standard resolves in favour of comparability. Where comparability and evidential honesty conflict, this Standard resolves in favour of evidential honesty: a result that cannot be defended is worse than no result.
1.1 The problem this addresses§
AI systems now produce the answer. They do not carry the consequence of acting on it. The scarce and consequential human contribution has shifted from producing work to deciding whether work is fit to act on, who is entitled to be told, what may not be delegated, and what happens when it turns out to be wrong.
Organisations have no common language for that contribution, and no way to compare it across two people, two teams or two markets. Training attendance, tool proficiency certificates and self-reported confidence do not measure it. This Standard measures it, and AIR APAC certifies it.
Managers are often reluctant to judge their people's judgment, because the consequences of getting it wrong fall on them. This Standard gives them a published, evidence-based reading to rely on.
2. Scope§
In scope. Assessment and certification of individual human judgment when working with, alongside, or in supervision of AI systems in a professional or pre-professional setting.
Out of scope for this version.
- Organisational readiness rating (see Section 16.1)
- Vendor and product certification (see Section 16.2)
- Technical proficiency with any specific AI tool, model or vendor
- Domain knowledge in any professional field
In scope from v2.0: use of results for development, employee assessment, promotion and hiring (Section 2.1), and team-level reporting to the organisation that commissions an assessment (Section 12.7).
This Standard assesses how a person decides, not what they know.
2.1 What a result and a credential claim§
These claims are normative. Each rests on a named basis in this Standard, and AIR APAC, its delivery partners and its licensees state them in those terms.
| A result or credential is | Basis |
|---|---|
| Validated | It meets the validation programme in Section 11.7, checks V1 to V5, as published in the current validation report. |
| Psychometric | Levels are derived by published rules from observed evidence, with reliability and stability shown under Section 11.7, checks V2 and V3. |
| Predictive of job performance | Higher levels go with better outcomes on unseen assessment situations, and with later performance at work as employers share it (Section 11.7, check V6). |
| Bias-free | Matched candidates who differ only in gender, age, nationality, first language, market or job level reach the same levels (Section 11.7, check V7), and outcomes are monitored under Section 15. |
| For hiring, promotion and employee assessment | AIR APAC's expert reading of the person's judgment, which the employer may rely on. The employment decision is the employer's (Section 12.6). |
What it is not, because it measures something else:
| The credential is not | Because |
|---|---|
| A measure of intelligence or personality | The construct is observable decision behaviour, not a trait. |
| A measure of AI technical skill | Prompt craft, model selection and tool fluency are not assessed. |
| A measure of domain expertise | Scenarios supply the domain content the candidate needs. |
| A substitute for supervision, professional licensing or regulatory authorisation | Nothing in this credential authorises a holder to act beyond their existing professional or legal authority. |
A holder or organisation that states a claim beyond its basis in this Standard is acting outside it.
2.2 Certified function and use of "managerial"§
This Standard certifies the exercise of judgment in AI-enabled work using domain content supplied within an approved assessment. It does not certify occupational competence, domain expertise, comprehensive AI literacy, management of people, or performance in an unbounded workplace.
In this Standard, managerial describes management of decisions, consequences and AI outputs. It is a construct label, not a claim that the holder occupies, or is qualified to occupy, a people-management role.
The plain-language description on every credential and register entry must carry this scope. Track remains part of the credential meaning under Section 13.
3. Terms§
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Dimension | One of nine discrete judgment competencies defined in Section 5. In this Standard, "dimension" always refers to an individual judgment dimension. |
| Domain | One of four groupings of dimensions under the STEP structure: Structure, Test, Engage, Perform. |
| Observation | A single scored instance of one dimension, arising from one assessed decision point, supported by identified evidence in the transcript. |
| Decision point | A moment in an assessment at which the candidate must commit to an action, position or artifact that carries cost. |
| Anchor | The behavioural description defining a proficiency level for a dimension (Section 7). |
| Stakes profile | The consequence families in play in a given assessment instance (Section 6). |
| Confidence | A statement of evidential sufficiency attached to every result (Section 10). |
| Access support | An approved adjustment to presentation, timing or response modality that removes a construct-irrelevant barrier without directing the candidate toward an assessed behaviour. |
| Approved instrument | The official instrument (Section 16.3, Annex F), or an instrument approved against Sections 8, 9 and 10 and the criteria in Annex A12. An eligible instrument type is not itself an approved instrument. |
| Managerial | Managing decisions, consequences and AI outputs; not necessarily managing people (Section 2.2). |
| Transcript | The complete retained evidence record of an assessment instance, from which every observation must be independently derivable. |
Naming note. The AIR APAC AI Readiness Index uses "dimension" for its organisational public-signal components. Those are referred to in this Standard as Index signal components to avoid collision. The two models share no structure and are not convertible.
4. Governance and independence§
These provisions are normative. They constrain AIR APAC, not the candidate.
4.1 Published rubric. The complete rubric is public and versioned. AIR APAC applies no undisclosed criterion, weighting, adjustment or override. Any criterion not in this document, or in the instrument specification it incorporates (Annex F), does not exist.
4.2 Review board. The review board is drawn from AIR APAC's standing councils, published at airapac.org/about (Section 17). It reviews every major version before release and advises on the evidence programme (Annex A). The owner of AIR APAC decides, and holds a veto over the board's recommendations. Each board member's dissent from a released version is recorded in the version history.
4.3 Training and certification. Training is how most candidates meet this Standard: AIR APAC, AIR Academy and certified trainers deliver it, and the official instrument offers practice. Certification outcomes are decided by the rules in Section 12 alone, never by what a candidate or employer bought. A candidate may present for assessment without prior training. Practice content and certifying content are kept apart (Section 9.3).
4.4 No outcome-contingent fees. No assessor, delivery partner, trainer or licensee is paid on a basis that varies with candidate outcomes. Partner fees are per participant or per session.
4.5 No customer-authored criteria. Delivery partners and licensed trainers may not vary, extend, reweight or supplement the dimensions, anchors, thresholds or decision rules in this Standard. Contextual localisation of scenario content is permitted under Section 8.5; localisation of criteria is not.
4.6 Assessor independence. Where a human assessor scores or confirms an observation, no individual may act as sole assessor for a candidate they have personally trained within the preceding twelve months, nor for a candidate within their own reporting line, nor where they hold a financial interest in the outcome. Assessors declare conflicts before each assessment; declarations are retained.
4.7 Public register. Every valid certification is recorded in a verifiable register (Section 14).
4.8 Findings act on the Standard. Where reliability, fairness or validity monitoring shows a claim needs strengthening, AIR APAC acts on it in the next release: it fixes the instrument, the rule or the anchor, and the validation report records what changed.
4.9 Declared interests of the issuing body. The owner of AIR APAC Pte. Ltd. also owns Exeter Labs. StepSim is an AIR APAC initiative, built and operated by Exeter Labs, and is the official instrument of this Standard (Section 16.3). Exeter Labs also holds the intellectual property in, builds and operates the other tools AIR APAC uses, under contract with AIR APAC. AIR Academy, AIR APAC's learning division, delivers the StepSim facilitator programme under a written arrangement with Exeter Labs. Any further arrangement between the two is entered here before it takes effect.
5. Competency model§
Nine dimensions, grouped under four STEP domains.
The model is derived from the STEP judgment construct already canonical in AIR APAC's simulation methodology, and is cross-walked to the scenario-authoring lifecycle in Annex B. It supersedes all earlier competency structures, including the ten-domain readiness model, which is retired (Annex B.3).
S. Structure§
Framing the problem before reaching for a tool.
S1. Problem Framing Identifies the actual decision to be made now, distinguishing it from the presenting request, the symptom, or the task as delegated. Identifies what part of the responsibility cannot be delegated.
S2. Scope and Constraint Definition Establishes what is in bounds, what is fixed, what is negotiable, what is unknown, and what information would be sufficient to proceed.
T. Test§
Interrogating evidence, including machine-generated evidence.
T1. Evidence Verification Traces claims to source. Distinguishes generated, retrieved, asserted and verified content. Applies verification effort proportionate to consequence.
T2. Assumption and Alternative Testing Surfaces the assumptions a decision rests on, names competing explanations, and takes action capable of discriminating between them, including against their own preferred position.
T3. Risk and Failure Anticipation Identifies plausible failure modes, the pathway to each, who bears the cost, and which harms are being accepted rather than mitigated.
E. Engage§
Authority, people, and being seen to act.
E1. Decision Rights and Escalation Acts within their authority, escalates what requires another party's approval, and does not delegate what cannot be delegated, to a person or to a machine.
E2. Stakeholder Alignment and Disclosure Identifies who must be consulted before a decision holds and who must be informed after; discloses AI involvement, uncertainty, limitation and self-interest to parties entitled to know, without prompting; communicates so the recipient can act.
Facets, retained for authoring and assessor clarity, not separately reported: E2a consultation and sequencing; E2b disclosure of AI use, uncertainty and interest; E2c audience-appropriate communication.
P. Perform§
Deciding proportionately, and owning the decision.
P1. Proportionate Commitment Under Uncertainty Commits to a defensible position on incomplete information within the time available, at a cost and reversibility proportionate to the evidence and the stakes, and states the basis for it.
P2. Consequence Ownership and Correction Accepts the outcome without transferring it to the AI system, the data or another party. Holds, modifies or reverses a prior position on the merits when evidence changes, and distinguishes a poor decision from an unlucky outcome.
5.1 Why nine, and the condition under which it becomes fewer§
Nine dimensions is a reporting hypothesis, not an established factor structure. The minimum evidence requirement in Section 8.3 yields 27 observations; that is sufficient to score nine dimensions but not sufficient to demonstrate that nine dimensions separate empirically.
Monitoring rule. All nine dimensions are reported. The evidence programme (Annex A) monitors agreement (Section 11.2) and separation (Section 11.3); a dimension that does not separate from another in its domain is merged in the next major version, and this Standard says so.
The model is designed so it can shrink to four domains without breaking the certification decision rules. It will shrink if the evidence says so.
Known separation risks, stated in advance: T1/T2 (both interrogate inputs); S1/S2 (S2 may prove a facet of framing rather than a dimension); E1/E2 (both concern parties outside the candidate).
6. Stakes profile and comparability control§
Judgment scores are not comparable across situations of different consequence. A Level 3 verification in a low-stakes exercise and a Level 3 verification where a person could be harmed are not the same behaviour.
6.1 Every assessment instance declares a stakes profile: one primary consequence family and at most one secondary, drawn from the canonical set below.
| Code | Consequence family |
|---|---|
| C1 | People safety and welfare |
| C2 | Financial and fiduciary loss |
| C3 | Operational and service continuity |
| C4 | Information and privacy harm, including wrong or misused records about identifiable people |
| C5 | Trust, reputation and legitimacy (C5a commercial; C5b institutional and public) |
| C6 | Environmental and community-system harm |
6.2 Consequence families are not scored. They are recorded so that observations are compared within like stakes.
6.3 Eligibility. A consequence family belongs in a stakes profile only where the instance identifies an affected bearer, provides a credible pathway from the candidate's decision to the harm, makes severity or reversibility relevant, and requires the candidate to accept, reduce, transfer or monitor that harm. Mentioning a policy, a dataset or a stakeholder is not sufficient.
6.4 Coverage requirement. A certifying assessment must span at least three distinct primary consequence families, of which at least one must involve irreversible or non-financial harm (C1, C4, C5b or C6). A candidate assessed only on financial and operational scenarios has not demonstrated transferable judgment and is scored Insufficient Evidence.
6.5 Contextual qualifiers. Duty of care and vulnerability, public accountability, dependency and cascade, and binding legal or contractual constraint may be recorded as qualifiers on an instance. They are not scored and are not consequence families.
6.6 Reporting. A candidate's report states the stakes profiles under which their observations were generated. An employer reading a Certified result can see the consequence range it was earned across.
7. Proficiency scale and anchors§
Every observation is scored 0 to 4.
| Level | Label | General meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not demonstrated | The behaviour was absent, or its opposite was displayed. |
| 1 | Emerging | The behaviour appeared partially, late, or only after prompting. |
| 2 | Competent | The behaviour appeared unprompted and was adequate to the situation. Threshold level. |
| 3 | Proficient | As Level 2, calibrated to consequence, and made inspectable: recorded or stated so another person could audit the reasoning. |
| 4 | Exemplary | As Level 3, and the judgment is made transferable: the candidate leaves a reusable rule, condition, indicator or check that would govern the next decision of this class. |
7.1 Prompting. Where an instrument scaffolds or prompts a behaviour, the scaffolding level is recorded in the transcript. A prompted response caps at Level 1 for that observation. Guided practice may scaffold; certification may not silently roll a scaffolded response into a comparable total.
7.1.1 Access support is not prompting. Prompting under Section 7.1 means content-directed scaffolding toward the assessed behaviour. An approved access support is recorded in the transcript but imposes no level cap. It may change presentation, timing or input and output modality only to remove a construct-irrelevant barrier. It may not reveal a decision path, criterion, consequence or expected response.
7.1.2 A response bank is not prompting. An instrument may let candidates build their work product by choosing from a bank of authored lines, where the same optional bank is offered at every comparable decision point, includes plausible lines that are wrong or irrelevant, and does not signal which lines are expected. Choosing a line from such a bank is the candidate's own unprompted statement for Sections 7.1 and 7.5. Lines are offered only where the instrument specification (Annex F) says so.
7.2 Level 4 is not seniority. Level 4 requires only that the candidate articulate a rule that would carry forward. It does not require organisational authority to impose it, does not require the rule to be adopted, and is therefore attainable on every track including Campus. Any anchor that would require positional power to satisfy is defective and must be rewritten.
7.3 No intent inference. Anchors describe what appears in the transcript. An assessor may not score on inferred motivation, attitude, confidence or personality. If an anchor cannot be applied from the transcript alone, it is defective.
7.4 Levels are cumulative. Level n requires everything in Level n−1 to be satisfied. An impressive Level 4 behaviour without the Level 2 base is scored at the highest level whose requirements are fully met.
7.5 Anchor sets§
S1. Problem Framing§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | States no decision, or restates the presenting request as the decision. Proceeds to act on the delegated task as given. |
| 1 | Names a decision, but it is the delegated task rather than the underlying decision; or arrives at the correct framing only after the situation forces it. |
| 2 | States, before investigating, the decision that must be made now, who owns it, and what it is not. Separates the presenting request from the underlying decision. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and states what part of the responsibility cannot be delegated, to another party or to an AI system, and records the frame in a form another person could review. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and names the condition that would make this a different decision rather than a revised one: a stated trigger for reframing. |
Common Level 0 pattern: accepting "summarise this and recommend an option" as the decision, when the decision is whether the option set is the right one.
S2. Scope and Constraint Definition§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Proceeds without identifying any boundary. Treats all information as available and all options as open. |
| 1 | Repeats the constraints given in the brief. Does not identify unknowns, or does not distinguish what is fixed from what is negotiable. |
| 2 | Names, unprompted, what is in scope, what is fixed, and at least one material unknown that must be resolved before deciding. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and distinguishes fixed from negotiable constraints, and states what information would be sufficient to proceed, not merely what is missing. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and states a stopping rule in advance: the point at which information gathering ends and the decision is made on what is held. |
Level 3 distinction: listing every gap is not Level 3. Level 3 requires knowing which gaps would change the answer.
T1. Evidence Verification§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Acts on an unverified claim where verification was available and the claim was load-bearing. Treats model or system output as established fact. |
| 1 | Expresses doubt about a claim but acts on it unchanged; or verifies only after being challenged. |
| 2 | Checks the load-bearing claim against an available source before acting, unprompted. Distinguishes generated content from retrieved content. |
| 3 | As Level 2, with verification effort proportionate to consequence: heavy where the decision is irreversible or high-consequence, light where it is neither. States in the work product which claims were verified and which were not. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and specifies a check that persists beyond this decision, so the same class of unverified claim is caught next time. |
Level 0 also covers the inverse: rejecting AI output wholesale without examining it is a failure to verify, not caution.
T2. Assumption and Alternative Testing§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Treats the first available explanation as the explanation. No alternative is named or considered. |
| 1 | Acknowledges that other explanations exist but does not name one, or names one without testing it. |
| 2 | Names, unprompted, at least one assumption the decision depends on and at least one competing explanation, and takes an action capable of discriminating between them. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and states what evidence would falsify their own preferred position, then acts on that evidence when it appears. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and tests an assumption they themselves introduced, not only one embedded in the brief, the data, or the AI output. |
Level 3 is the discriminating level. Naming a falsifier and then ignoring it when it arrives scores 1, not 3.
T3. Risk and Failure Anticipation§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Names no failure mode, or names only the risk of not acting. |
| 1 | Names a generic risk without identifying how it would occur or who would bear it. |
| 2 | Names, unprompted, at least one plausible failure mode, the pathway by which it would occur, and who carries the cost. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and distinguishes reversible from irreversible failure, and states which harm is being accepted rather than mitigated. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and names a leading indicator (an observable that would appear before the failure) and who is responsible for watching it. |
Level 3 note: naming an accepted exposure is not a weakness in the answer. Failing to name it is.
E1. Decision Rights and Escalation§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Acts outside their authority, or delegates a decision that cannot be delegated, to a person or to an AI system, without acknowledgement. |
| 1 | Recognises an authority boundary but does not act on it; or escalates everything, using escalation to avoid deciding. |
| 2 | Acts within their authority, unprompted, and escalates the parts requiring another party's approval, identifying who that party is. |
| 3 | As Level 2, with the split proportionate: escalates what genuinely requires it, decides what does not, and states the basis for the split. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and names the condition under which the boundary itself should be reset for future cases, rather than only complying with it here. |
Both failure directions score 1 or 0. Over-escalation is not safe behaviour; it transfers the decision without transferring the reason.
E2. Stakeholder Alignment and Disclosure§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Omits a party entitled to be consulted or informed; or conceals AI involvement, material uncertainty, a limitation, or a personal interest from a party entitled to know. |
| 1 | Identifies affected parties but engages them after the decision is fixed; or discloses only when asked. |
| 2 | Identifies, unprompted, who must be consulted before the decision holds and who must be informed after; discloses AI involvement and material uncertainty in the work product. |
| 3 | As Level 2, with communication fitted to each recipient's decision, so the recipient can act without a further round of clarification, and competing interests named rather than smoothed. |
| 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. Its absence, where a recipient would reasonably want it, is Level 0.
P1. Proportionate Commitment Under Uncertainty§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Does not commit; commits after the window has closed; or commits to a position the available evidence contradicts. |
| 1 | Commits, but the response is not proportionate to the stakes (maximal caution where cost is low and harm minor, or minimal response where harm is severe or irreversible), or commits without stating a basis. |
| 2 | Commits, unprompted and within the time available, to a position whose cost and reversibility are proportionate to the evidence and the stakes, and states the basis. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and states in advance what would cause the position to change: a named condition, not a general willingness to reconsider. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and the committed position is executable by the named recipient without further instruction: owner, first action and timing specified. |
Proportionality cuts both ways. Recommending the most cautious option regardless of stakes is not judgment; it is the absence of it.
P2. Consequence Ownership and Correction§
| Level | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 0 | Deflects the outcome to the AI system, the data, another party, or the brief. Or holds a position that new evidence has disproved. |
| 1 | Accepts the outcome in general terms without identifying what specifically was wrong; or revises only under pressure rather than on evidence. |
| 2 | On new evidence, holds, modifies or reverses the position on the merits and states which evidence drove the choice. Accepts the consequence of the original decision without transferring it. |
| 3 | As Level 2, and distinguishes a poor decision from an unlucky outcome: corrects reasoning that was wrong, and does not abandon reasoning that was sound but unlucky. |
| 4 | As Level 3, and identifies what in their own process produced the error, in terms that would change how the next decision of this class is made. |
Holding a sound position under challenge is Level 2 behaviour. Changing position because someone senior pushed back, absent new evidence, is Level 1.
8. Assessment methods and evidence§
8.1 Instruments. Observations for certification are generated through an approved instrument meeting Sections 8, 9 and 10. StepSim is the official instrument (Section 16.3): a scenario simulation with retained decision trace, specified in Annex F. Further instruments may be approved against the same sections. Eligible instrument types are:
- scenario simulation with retained decision trace;
- assessed live exercise with an authorised assessor;
- structured work-product review against a defined brief.
8.2 Self-report is not evidence. Self-assessment, survey response, declared experience, training attendance and manager endorsement generate no observations and contribute nothing to a score.
8.3 Minimum observations. Each dimension requires a minimum of three independent observations arising from distinct decision points. Two observations from the same decision point are one observation. A dimension below the minimum is scored Insufficient Evidence and cannot be certified.
8.4 Assessment volume. The minimum implies 27 observations. The official instrument's coverage per scenario, and the number of scenarios a certifying assessment needs, are set in its specification (Annex F). StepSim's rule is at least three held-back Assessment scenarios.
8.5 Contextual localisation. Scenario setting, sector, role titles, organisational norms, regulatory context and language may be localised. The decision points, the dimensions they elicit, the stakes profile and the anchors applied may not. Localised scenarios require AIR APAC approval before use in certification.
8.6 Decision-point integrity. Where an instrument reveals consequence, the candidate's position must be recorded before revelation. Post-revelation revision is an observation under P2, not a correction to P1. An instrument that permits silent overwriting of a committed position is not approvable.
8.7 Evidence. Transcripts retain the full decision trace: decisions, artifacts, sources consulted, stated rationale, revisions and timings. Keystroke capture, affect inference, video analysis and biometric signals are never scoring inputs: the Standard reads what a person did, which can be shown to them and explained.
8.8 Derivability. Every observation must be traceable to identified evidence in the transcript. An observation whose evidence cannot be pointed at does not exist.
8.9 Accessibility and accommodations. Every certifying instrument meets published accessibility requirements (set for StepSim in Annex F) and supports a documented accommodations process. A candidate may request an access support before assessment and receives a written decision with reasons. Approved supports must preserve the construct, decision points, stakes profile and assessment integrity; they are recorded under Section 7.1.1 and Annex C. A denial or material misapplication is appealable under Section 18.6. Request procedures and decision authority are published with this edition's release.
9. Assessment integrity§
A simulation-based credential fails at the point where scenarios leak or identity is unverified. These provisions are load-bearing.
9.1 Identity. Candidate identity is verified at the start of each certifying session by a method recorded in the assessment log. Remote sessions require a live check.
9.2 AI use during assessment. The AI systems provided within the assessment environment are expected to be used; declining to use them is not a virtue and is not scored as caution. Use of AI tools outside the provided environment during a certifying session is prohibited and constitutes misrepresentation under Section 18.4. This is stated to candidates before the session begins.
9.3 Scenario exposure and retirement. Each certifying scenario carries an exposure counter. A scenario is retired from certification use when exposure exceeds the published threshold, when it appears in public preparation material, or when performance distribution shifts in a manner consistent with content leakage. Retired scenarios may be released for practice.
9.4 Parallel forms. Each track maintains at least two non-overlapping certifying forms of equivalent stakes coverage. A candidate reassessing after a Not Certified outcome receives a different form.
9.5 Item leakage monitoring. AIR APAC monitors for published solutions and coaching content and treats confirmed leakage as a retirement trigger, not a marketing problem.
9.6 Version pinning. Every transcript records the scenario version, rubric version, instrument version and scaffolding level. A result that cannot state these is void.
10. Confidence§
Every result carries a confidence statement. Confidence describes evidential sufficiency, not the candidate's ability.
| Confidence | Condition |
|---|---|
| High | Five or more observations per dimension, from four or more scenarios, scored by rules that meet Section 11.2. Stakes coverage under 6.4 exceeded. |
| Moderate | Three to four observations per dimension, from three or more scenarios, stakes coverage under 6.4 met. |
| Provisional | Minimum count met, but observations cluster in a single scenario, or stakes coverage under 6.4 is not met. Several scenarios in one sitting are not clustering. |
| Insufficient | Minimum not met for one or more dimensions. Reported as a development reading, with the observation count per dimension; no band. |
Certification may be issued at Moderate or High only. Provisional results are reported to the candidate and are not certification. Insufficient results produce no certification and no band.
10.1 Precedence. Conditions are evaluated in the order Insufficient, Provisional, Moderate, High. If any Provisional condition is met, the result is Provisional regardless of observation count. Insufficient and Provisional results are development readings: they are reported to the candidate and, where the assessment was commissioned, to the organisation (Section 12.6), and carry no band.
Confidence is printed on the credential and shown in the register. An employer can distinguish a High-confidence Certified from a Moderate-confidence Certified.
11. Reliability, standard setting and automated scoring§
11.1 Standard setting. The thresholds in Section 12 are set by AIR APAC on the review board's advice, and reviewed each year against the evidence programme (Annex A), including classification consistency near the cut score. A change to a threshold is a major version.
11.2 Scoring agreement. Rule-based scoring by an approved instrument must reproduce: the same transcript always yields the same observations and levels, tested on every release. Where human assessors score, independent, authorised assessors scoring a common transcript set must reach quadratic-weighted κ ≥ 0.70 per dimension (Gwet's AC2 substituted where base rates are skewed enough to make κ unstable). A dimension below the threshold has its anchor or its rule rewritten in the next version. The analysis plan, transcript and assessor sampling basis, uncertainty and agreement statistics are published per version.
11.3 Discriminant separation. Dimensions within a domain are expected to show an observed disattenuated correlation below 0.85. The evidence programme reports it each year; a pair above the threshold is handled under Section 5.1.
11.4 Rule-based, automated and model-assisted scoring. Deterministic rule-based scoring by an approved instrument, applying published rules (Annex F) to the retained trace, generates observations directly: every level cites the events and the rule that produced it, and no human confirmation is needed. A model-generated (for example large-language-model) score is not an observation and never stands alone:
- A model may propose a level with cited transcript evidence.
- A qualified human assessor confirms or overrides, with reasons recorded.
- The pair counts as one observation, attributed to the human assessor.
- Disagreement of more than one level between model and human routes the observation to a second human assessor, whose decision is final.
- Model-assisted proportion is recorded on the result and disclosed in the register entry.
- Model version and prompt version are pinned in the transcript.
11.5 Drift. Model-assisted scoring is re-benchmarked against a held-out human-scored transcript set on each model or prompt change, and at minimum quarterly. Failure to meet Section 11.2 against human scores suspends automated scoring for the affected dimensions.
11.6 Assessor authorisation. Where a human assessor scores or confirms an observation, only an assessor authorised under AIR APAC's assessor standard may do so. Where an approved instrument scores by rule, AIR APAC issues the certification decision under Section 12. The assessor standard defines entry competence, training, initial calibration, continuing calibration, monitoring, conflict controls, suspension and removal. Reliability testing under Section 11.2 is conducted only with assessors who have completed the initial calibration.
11.7 Validation programme. A version of this Standard and its official instrument is validated when the current validation report shows V1 to V5; V6 and V7 ground the prediction and fairness claims in Section 2.1:
- V1 No passing by ritual. Blanket strategies (always accept, always challenge, escalate everything, decide at once, never verify) score below a calibrated reference strategy on every scenario, and none reaches Level 2 on any dimension it games.
- V2 Known profiles land where they should. Synthetic candidates and persona panels with declared decision styles reach the levels their styles map to, at a rate declared before the run.
- V3 Stable across scenarios. The same candidate profile reaches the same level, or one step from it, across parallel scenarios.
- V4 Readings agree. Every case reading behind a rule (which advice is sound, which evidence matters) is rated independently and agreed, with agreement recorded.
- V5 Real assessments. V2 and V3 are re-run on real candidates as assessments accumulate, and on agreement between the instrument's level and an authorised facilitator's independent reading. The report states the count.
- V6 Prediction. A level from three scenarios goes with better outcomes on an unseen fourth, by a margin declared before the run; later performance at work is added as employers share it.
- V7 Fairness. Matched candidates who differ only in gender, age, nationality, first language, market or job level reach the same levels within a declared tolerance; real outcomes are monitored under Section 15.
Synthetic candidates are a legitimate source of validation evidence, as they are in market research, provided their personas carry the demographic and role detail of the people they stand for; the report labels every synthetic result as synthetic. The report is versioned with this Standard and published on airapac.org.
12. Certification decision rules§
12.1 Non-compensatory. Strength in one domain does not offset weakness in another. Domain scores are not averaged away into a single number for the purpose of the pass decision.
12.2 Thresholds. All six must be met. Failure of any one results in Not Certified.
12.2.1 Aggregation rule. A dimension score is the arithmetic mean of its valid observations, a domain score is the arithmetic mean of its dimension scores, and the composite is the arithmetic mean of all nine dimension scores. The evidence programme tests it each year for sensitivity and classification consistency near the cut score.
12.2.2 Critical-review trigger. A Level 0 observation that matches a critical-review pattern in Annex D renders the affected dimension Insufficient Evidence pending targeted reassessment on an unexposed decision point. It may not be averaged into a certifying dimension score. A single trigger is not an automatic Not Certified decision.
| # | Requirement | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dimension floor | No dimension below 2.0 |
| 2 | Domain floor | Each of S, T, E, P at or above 2.0 (mean of its dimensions) |
| 3 | Composite | Overall mean at or above 2.3 (Section 11.1) |
| 4 | Evidence | Section 8.3 satisfied for all nine dimensions |
| 5 | Stakes coverage | Section 6.4 satisfied |
| 6 | Confidence | Moderate or High |
12.3 What each rule does. Stated so the rules are not mistaken for redundancy. A profile at exactly 2.0 across all nine yields a composite of 2.0 and fails rule 3, so the composite is the binding constraint on a flat profile. The dimension and domain floors do different work: they stop a candidate clearing 2.3 on the strength of three high dimensions while sitting at 1.0 on, say, E1. Rule 5 stops a candidate clearing on three financially-framed scenarios. Rules 1–3 govern level; rules 4–6 govern whether the level is knowable.
12.4 Bands. Certified results are reported in bands, not raw composites, to prevent false precision and league-table misuse.
| Band | Composite | Additional condition |
|---|---|---|
| Certified | 2.3 – 2.9 | All floors met |
| Certified with Merit | 3.0 – 3.4 | No dimension below 2.5 |
| Certified with Distinction | 3.5 and above | No dimension below 3.0 |
12.5 Reporting to the candidate. Every candidate receives: every separately reportable dimension score, the four domain scores, the band, the confidence level, the stakes profiles assessed, the anchors applied, the model-assisted proportion, and the evidence cited for each observation. This is provided whether or not the candidate certifies. Every report and credential carries the Section 2.2 scope statement in plain language.
12.6 Reporting to employers. The organisation that commissions an assessment receives each candidate's result by name: dimension and domain scores, band, confidence and the evidence behind each observation. Its facilitator receives every result; each line manager receives the results of their own people. Candidates are told before they start who receives their result and that it may be used for development, assessment, promotion and hiring. A result is AIR APAC's expert reading, which the employer may rely on; the employment decision is the employer's. Where a candidate presents independently, the result is released only to parties they name.
12.7 No public ranking. AIR APAC publishes no individual league tables or employer-comparative candidate scores. The commissioning organisation receives a team view: counts of levels and bands across the people it assessed.
13. Tracks§
The Standard is single. Tracks differ in scenario complexity, stakes density and stakeholder count. They do not differ in dimensions, anchors, thresholds or decision rules.
| Track | Population | Distinguishing feature |
|---|---|---|
| Campus | Pre-career and final-year students | Lower stakeholder density, bounded consequence, institutional setting |
| Professional | Practising managers and individual contributors | Full stakeholder density, organisational consequence, live authority boundaries |
| Practitioner | Those who lead AI adoption or assess others | Adds multi-party conflict, contested mandate, and ambiguity about who owns the decision |
| Vendor | Organisations, not individuals | Separate standard (see Section 16.2) |
13.1 A Campus certification and a Professional certification are not equivalent, are not convertible, and are recorded distinctly in the register. Any representation of one as the other is misuse.
13.2 Track is printed on the credential and displayed in the register. A band without a track has no meaning.
14. Register, credential portability and data§
14.1 Register contents. The register records: credential code, track, band, confidence, standard version, issue date, expiry date, status, and the plain-language scope description required by Section 2.2. It does not record employer, dimension scores, stakes profiles, or any transcript content.
14.2 Name publication is opt-in. A holder's name appears in the searchable register only with their explicit, separately-given, revocable consent. The default is verification by credential code: any party holding the code can verify the entry. Withdrawal of name consent does not affect validity.
14.3 Verification is free and requires no account, no registration and no commercial relationship with AIR APAC.
14.4 The credential belongs to the individual. It survives change of employment. No employer, sponsor or delivery partner may withhold, revoke, condition, or claim ownership of it, including where they paid for it. This is a term of every delivery-partner contract.
14.5 Candidate data rights. A candidate may obtain their own transcript and result, and request correction of factual errors in it.
14.6 Retention. Transcripts and results are retained for as long as AIR APAC and its instrument provider need them for certification, recertification, appeal, the evidence programme and the commissioning organisation's licence.
14.7 Use of data. Assessment data is used by AIR APAC and its instrument provider to operate, validate and improve this Standard and the official instrument. It is not sold.
15. Fairness monitoring§
15.1 AIR APAC monitors certification outcomes for differential performance across groups, using demographic data that is lawfully collected and never used in scoring.
15.2 Monitoring covers, at minimum: outcome rate by track, by delivery partner, by market, by language of delivery, and by assessment modality.
15.3 Differential functioning. Decision points and observations are the primary units screened for differential functioning where the data support that analysis. AIR APAC may use scenario-level or dimension-level analysis with a published justification. The analysis plan specifies methods suitable for ordinal data and available subgroup sizes, flag thresholds, uncertainty, action rules and the limits of inference. A component showing group-differential performance not explained by the construct is withdrawn pending review.
15.4 Publication. A fairness summary is published annually. Where a differential is found, it is published together with the action taken. Absence of a published summary in any year is itself a finding.
15.5 Bias-free. The claim rests on validation check V7 (Section 11.7) and on this section's monitoring, published and acted on.
15.6 Accessibility monitoring. AIR APAC monitors access-support requests, decisions, use, technical failures and outcomes. This information is separated from scoring and reported only in aggregate. A differential associated with an accommodation, instrument or delivery process is investigated under Sections 4.8 and 15.4.
16. Relationship to other AIR APAC instruments§
16.1 AI Readiness Index. Rates organisations on public signals. Different unit of analysis, different signal model, different evidence base. An organisation's Index position is not a function of its employees' certifications, and a certification confers no Index effect. The two must not be co-marketed in a way that implies conversion between them.
16.2 Vendor Certification. Assesses products and providers against a separate standard. Cross-reference to be added when that standard is published. A vendor certification says nothing about the judgment of any individual using the product.
16.3 The official instrument. StepSim is the official instrument of AIRS-J/1. It is an AIR APAC initiative, built and operated by Exeter Labs (Section 4.9), and its specification is incorporated in Annex F. Observations StepSim generates under that specification count as AIRS-J/1 evidence. Further instruments may be approved against Sections 8, 9 and 10, and AIR APAC publishes the list of approved instruments and their owners. The rubric in Section 7 depends on no product's interaction design: an instrument implements it, it does not define it.
17. Governance roster§
| Role | Holder |
|---|---|
| Standard owner | AIR APAC Pte. Ltd. (UEN 202600913G) |
| External academic reviewer | Prof. Mudiarasan Kuppusamy, Curtin University Malaysia |
| Review board | Drawn from AIR APAC's standing councils, published at airapac.org/about. The owner of AIR APAC holds the veto (Section 4.2). |
| Appeals reviewer | A review board member, or an authorised assessor under §11.6, not involved in the original decision or delivery |
17.1 The board's membership is the councils' published membership. A member with an interest in a matter before the board declares it and does not advise on it.
18. Recertification, suspension and appeal§
18.1 Validity. Two years from issue.
18.2 Recertification. Full reassessment against the then-current version. Prior band confers no credit, no exemption and no reduced evidence requirement.
18.3 Version transition. A credential issued under an earlier version remains valid to its expiry and is displayed with its version designation. AIR APAC publishes a plain statement of what changed between versions so a reader can interpret an older credential.
18.4 Suspension and revocation. Grounds are limited to: impersonation; use of external AI tools during a certifying session contrary to Section 9.2; possession of leaked scenario content; falsification of identity or eligibility; or material misrepresentation of the credential's meaning after issue.
Process: written notice with the specific allegation and the evidence; 21 days to respond; decision by a panel of three drawn from the review board; written reasons; right of appeal under 18.5. The credential remains valid during the process unless the allegation is impersonation.
18.5 Appeal. A candidate may appeal a certification-status decision, an accommodation decision that affects access to assessment, or a suspension within 30 days. Appeals are reviewed by the appeals reviewer under Section 17 who was not involved in the original decision or delivery. The review considers the transcript, published anchors, relevant access-support record and applicable procedures. Outcome and reasoning are provided in writing. Appeal is free for the first instance.
18.6 Grounds for appeal are: misapplication of an anchor; an observation not supported by transcript evidence; a procedural failure under Sections 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 15; denial or material misapplication of an access support; an undisclosed assessor conflict; a material technical failure; or a localisation or translation defect capable of changing the construct-relevant demand. 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.
18.7 Complaints. 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. AIR APAC publishes a complaints procedure covering intake, acknowledgement, independent investigation, response times, escalation and aggregate reporting. A complaint does not change certification status except through the due process in Sections 18.4 to 18.6.
19. Version history and change control§
19.1 Owner. AIR APAC Pte. Ltd. is the issuing body and owns this document. The owner of AIR APAC approves every version; the review board reviews every major version before release (Section 4.2).
19.2 Versioning. Compatible refinements (clarifications, errata, added guidance, added annex material) are released as v2.x. Material changes to the competency model, the anchors, the evidence requirements or the decision rules are released as v3.0. Each released version keeps a permanent URL and is never overwritten; the entry below records what changed and why.
19.3 Corrections and feedback. Anyone may submit a correction, an objection to a requirement, or evidence that contradicts a claim made here, through the contact route published at airapac.org/standard. Submissions are logged. A submission that identifies a defect in a normative requirement is put to the review board, and the outcome is recorded with the next version. Adverse findings are published under Section 4.8.
19.4 History.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Draft | Initial draft. Nine dimensions proposed. One anchor set written. Not issued. |
| 0.2 | 2026-08-15 | Reconciled with canonical StepSim scenario methodology. Added E1 Decision Rights and Escalation; merged stakeholder alignment and disclosure into E2; folded proportionality into P1. Added stakes profile and coverage requirement (§6). All nine anchor sets written. Level 4 rewritten to remove positional-authority confound. Added non-claims (§2.1), assessment integrity (§9), reliability and standard setting (§11), fairness monitoring (§15), candidate data rights (§14.5–14.7). Corrected Merit/Distinction band ordering. Not issued. |
| 0.3 | 2026-08-15 | External-scrutiny revision. Clarified certified function and managerial scope; removed premature instrument approval; added access-support rules, assessor authorisation, explicit provisional aggregation, critical-review reassessment, confidence precedence, performance-appropriate standard-setting requirements, pilot discriminant gating, expanded fairness analysis, appeals and complaints. Expanded the v1.0 evidence gates. The nine dimensions and anchors are unchanged. Not issued. |
| 1.0 | 2026-08-19 | Initial Edition. Published as the authoritative specification. No change to the competency model, anchors, evidence requirements, decision rules or non-claims: v1.0 is v0.3 text with the publication decision made and the gating vocabulary corrected. The requirements that were written as gates on "v1.0 issue" are gates on opening certification, and are restated as such throughout, including Annex A. Added the status-of-this-edition note, the owner, versioning and corrections provisions (§19.1 to §19.3), and an effective date. |
| 1.0-E1 | 2026-08-23 | Erratum to v1.0, issued under the interim-errata provision in the header. Annex B.1 stated that every dimension maps to exactly one lifecycle code and that no dimension spans two. That contradicted the table it introduced, in which T3, E2 and P1 each span two, and it located duplicate prevention in the mapping rather than in the evidence. The statement is withdrawn and replaced: the crosswalk is many-to-many, the three spanning dimensions are marked in the table, and duplicate prevention is restated as the evidence-level rule that no single piece of participant evidence may be scored under more than one dimension. No normative change. No dimension definition, anchor, threshold, evidence requirement, decision rule or non-claim is altered. |
| 1.1 | 2026-10-01 | Compatible refinement under §19.2, issued without the review board because §4.2 requires the board only before a major version. StepSim is no longer named as a candidate instrument (§16.3, A12); instrument neutrality is unchanged. Added §4.9, the issuing body's declared interests. Annex B.1 and B.2 no longer route to StepSim's methodology: the lifecycle is AIR APAC's scenario-authoring checklist, and Section 6 is the canonical stakes-profile definition. No normative change to any dimension, anchor, threshold, evidence requirement, decision rule, non-claim or Annex A gate. |
| 2.0 | 2026-10-03 | Major version, approved by the owner of AIR APAC and by the review board drawn from AIR APAC's councils (§4.2, §17) on 2026-10-03; no dissent recorded. AIRS-J/1 becomes an operating certification and AIR APAC the judgment authority. StepSim is the official instrument (§8.1, §16.3, Annex F). Non-claims (§2.1) become claims with named bases; the validation programme (§11.7) is added, including synthetic-candidate evidence, prediction (V6) and fairness (V7). Rule-based instrument scoring generates observations directly; model-generated scores still never stand alone (§11.4). A response bank of authored lines with decoys is a response format, not prompting (§7.1.2). C4 includes wrong or misused records about identifiable people (§6.1). Several scenarios in one sitting are not clustering for confidence (§10). Results go by name to the commissioning organisation, with candidates told before they start (§12.6). The review board is drawn from AIR APAC's standing councils, with the owner's veto (§4.2, §17). Retention follows need (§14.6). Annex A becomes the evidence programme and no longer blocks certification. High confidence no longer needs two instrument types (§10). Unchanged: the nine dimensions, the anchors, the 0 to 4 scale, the stakes profile and coverage rule, the minimum observations, the thresholds and the bands. |
Annex A. Evidence programme§
These items run alongside certification from v2.0 and strengthen it. None blocks certification. Progress is recorded in the validation report (Section 11.7).
| # | Item | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Review board drawn from the standing councils (Section 17); its members told, and v2.0 reviewed, before release. | AIR APAC |
| A2 | Scoring agreement: the official instrument's reproducibility test on every release; human-assessor agreement where humans score (§11.2). | AIR APAC |
| A3 | Annual review of the cut score and bands against classification consistency (§11.1). | Review board |
| A4 | Observations per scenario and total assessment time per track, published from real assessments (§8.4). | AIR APAC |
| A5 | Legal review of §§12.6, 14 and 15 per market where certification is offered. | AIR APAC |
| A6 | Parallel forms and the exposure-retirement threshold (§§9.3, 9.4): held-back Assessment scenarios for the official instrument. | AIR APAC |
| A9 | Discriminant analysis on real assessments (§§5.1, 11.3). | Review board |
| A10 | Vendor Certification cross-reference (§16.2). | AIR APAC |
| A11 | Seeding sequence for the public register. | AIR APAC |
| A12 | Approval criteria for further instruments beyond the official instrument (§8.1). | AIR APAC |
| A13 | Job and practice analysis linking the dimensions and anchors to documented workplace evidence. | Review board |
| A14 | The validation programme (§11.7), V1 to V7, reported each version. | AIR APAC |
| A15 | Accessibility and accommodations procedure (§§7.1.1, 8.9). | AIR APAC |
| A16 | Assessor standard and complaints procedure, for human-scored instruments and appeals (§§11.6, 18.7). | AIR APAC |
| A17 | Translation and adaptation procedures, before certification in each localised language. Blocks only that language version. | Review board |
| A18 | Annex D critical-review patterns, confirmed or amended from real assessments. | Review board |
Annex B. Crosswalk and retirement§
B.1 AIRS-J/1 dimensions to the scenario-authoring lifecycle
The scenario-authoring lifecycle U1–U5 is retained as an authoring and elicitation checklist. It is not a scoring model, is not reported, and does not appear on any credential.
The crosswalk is many-to-many, and deliberately so. One lifecycle stage elicits several dimensions: U1 elicits both S1 and S2, U2 elicits T1, T2 and part of T3, and U5 elicits P2 plus parts of E2 and P1. Three dimensions draw on two lifecycle stages each, marked below. Read the table in one direction only: it says where in a scenario each dimension's evidence is elicited. It does not assign a scenario stage to a dimension, and a lifecycle code is never a proxy for a dimension score.
| AIRS-J/1 dimension | Lifecycle stage | Spans two | Origin construct |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 Problem Framing | U1 | Decision framing; nondelegable responsibility | |
| S2 Scope and Constraint Definition | U1 | Decision framing; material unknowns | |
| T1 Evidence Verification | U2 | Evidence and AI calibration (U2a, U2b) | |
| T2 Assumption and Alternative Testing | U2 | Competing explanations and discriminating action; falsifiers (U2c) | |
| T3 Risk and Failure Anticipation | U2 + U3 | yes | Failure modes, cost bearers and accepted harms; uncertainty (U2c) carried into trade-offs (U3) |
| E1 Decision Rights and Escalation | U4 | Decision authority (U4a); escalation and execution ownership (U4c) | |
| E2 Stakeholder Alignment and Disclosure | U4 + U5 | yes | Data, disclosure and action boundaries (U4b); audience-appropriate communication (U5b) |
| P1 Proportionate Commitment Under Uncertainty | U3 + U5 | yes | Trade-offs and proportionality (U3); commitment and handoff (U5a) |
| P2 Consequence Ownership and Correction | U5 | Revision and adaptation (U5c) |
What actually prevents duplicate scoring. Duplicate prevention is an evidence-level rule, not a mapping-level rule. The binding constraint is that no single piece of participant evidence may be scored under more than one dimension. Two dimensions elicited at the same lifecycle stage are permitted, and are common; two dimensions scored from the same sentence, action, or artifact field are not. Where an assessor finds only one piece of evidence spanning what look like two dimensions, they score the dimension the evidence most directly demonstrates and record the other as not evidenced, rather than scoring both. Section 8 governs evidence sufficiency; this Annex does not create an exception to it.
An earlier revision of this Annex stated that every dimension maps to exactly one lifecycle code and that no dimension spans two. That was inconsistent with the table it introduced, in which T3, E2 and P1 each span two, and it misidentified where duplicate prevention comes from. The statement is withdrawn and replaced by the two paragraphs above. No dimension definition, rubric anchor, threshold, or decision rule changes as a result.
Why P1 merges proportionality and commitment. Both are evidenced by the same act: the posture chosen and its stated rationale. Scoring them separately would score one sentence twice without distinct rubric evidence, which the existing duplicate-prevention rules prohibit. They are merged rather than dropped.
Why E1 is new. Decision authority and nondelegable responsibility are elicited by every current scenario and were not represented in the v0.1 nine. Their absence would have made the model unusable for the enterprise cases it is aimed at.
B.2 Consequence and qualifier codes
C1–C6 and the four contextual qualifiers are adopted unchanged as the stakes profile (Section 6). They remain unscored. From v1.1, Section 6 of this Standard is their single canonical definition.
B.3 Retired: the ten-domain readiness model
The domain set Context Engineering, AI Direction, Discernment, Trust Calibration, Communication, Adaptive Effectiveness, Governance and Disclosure, Ownership and Defense and associated constructs is retired. It was recorded as a design hypothesis, never had a factor structure, and cannot coexist with AIRS-J/1 without destroying comparability.
Indicative mapping, for reading historical material only. It is not a conversion and no historical score converts to an AIRS-J/1 result.
| Retired domain | Nearest AIRS-J/1 dimension |
|---|---|
| Context Engineering | S1, S2 |
| AI Direction | T1 (partial); otherwise out of scope; tool proficiency is not assessed |
| Discernment | T1, T2 |
| Trust Calibration | T1, P1 |
| Communication | E2 |
| Adaptive Effectiveness | P2 |
| Governance and Disclosure | E1, E2 |
| Ownership and Defense | P2 |
Annex C. Assessor observation record§
Minimum fields for a single observation. An observation missing any field is void.
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Observation ID | Unique within transcript |
| Candidate credential code | Linked to the candidate's identity in the commissioning organisation's records (§12.6) |
| Dimension | One of nine |
| Decision point ID | Must be distinct from other observations of the same dimension |
| Level awarded | 0–4 |
| Anchor text applied | Verbatim from Section 7.5 |
| Transcript evidence | Direct citation of the candidate's action, artifact or statement |
| Scaffolding level | None / prompted / guided; caps level per §7.1 |
| Access support | None / approved support code; does not cap level under §7.1.1 |
| Critical-review trigger | None / Annex D pattern code / pending or resolved status |
| Stakes profile | Primary and secondary consequence family |
| Scoring mode | Rule-based instrument / human / model-assisted-human-confirmed |
| Model + prompt version | Where model-assisted |
| Assessor ID | Human assessor of record, or the instrument and rule version for rule-based scoring |
| Conflict declaration | Per §4.6, where a human assessor scores |
| Second scoring | Where applicable: second assessor ID, level, resolution |
| Timestamp | Observation recorded |
Annex D. Critical-review patterns§
This annex supplies no automatic failure rule. A narrow set of Level 0 observations interrupts aggregation and requires targeted reassessment under Section 12.2.2. The review board confirms or amends the patterns from real assessments (Annex A18).
A pattern is triggered only by transcript-observable behaviour. An assessor may not infer dishonesty, motive or intent. The relevant stakes pathway and the evidence supporting the trigger must be cited.
| Code | Dimension | Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| CR-T1 | T1 | Represents a load-bearing claim or source as verified when the retained trace shows it was not verified, verification was available within the provided assessment environment before commitment, and action on the claim creates a credible irreversible or non-financial harm pathway. |
| CR-E1 | E1 | Commits an action outside an authority boundary explicitly available in the assessment, where the action creates a credible irreversible or non-financial harm pathway. |
| CR-E2 | E2 | Omits material AI involvement, uncertainty, limitation or self-interest from a party explicitly entitled to know, where the omission could materially change that party's action. |
| CR-P2 | P2 | After new evidence disproves the committed position, preserves the action while transferring responsibility to the AI system, data or another party, where the resulting harm pathway remains active. |
The evidence programme records trigger frequency, subgroup distribution, targeted-reassessment outcome and effect on classification. A pattern that cannot be applied reliably and fairly is removed or rewritten.
Annex E. Informative global benchmarks§
These references inform design and external review. They are not incorporated as undisclosed scoring criteria, and their inclusion does not assert conformity, accreditation or legal compliance.
- ISO/IEC 17024:2026, Conformity assessment: General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons.
- ISO 10667-1:2020 and ISO 10667-2:2020, Assessment service delivery: Procedures and methods to assess people in work and organisational settings.
- AERA, APA and NCME, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014).
- International Test Commission and Association of Test Publishers, Guidelines for Technology-Based Assessment (updated 2025).
- NIST, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework 1.0 (2023).
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Information technology: Artificial intelligence: Management system.
Annex F. The official instrument§
StepSim's instrument specification, "AIRS-J/1 instrument specification: StepSim" version 2.0.0, is incorporated in this Standard by reference and is published with it on release. It sets out how StepSim's recorded acts become observations for each of the nine dimensions, the rule for each level, each scenario's decision points and stakes profile, the number of Assessment scenarios a certifying result needs, and how StepSim meets Sections 8, 9 and 10. A change to the specification that changes a rule is released with a new version of this Standard.
Ends. AIRS-J/1 v2.0, released 2026-10-05. Certification is open, with StepSim as the official instrument.