About the Council
The AI Assurance Council certifies professionals on the use of AI in their work, beginning with finance and accounting. We certify people — not organisations, not products, not management systems — against a published competency framework, through examination that tests applied judgement.
§ 1 — Constitution
The Council exists because of one narrow gap. There is no shortage of AI governance frameworks. There is a shortage of people who can apply one to a live deployment and defend the result — and no common standard by which a professional can prove that they can, or an employer can check it. A Council credential is built to answer both sides of that question: every credential it issues carries a unique identifier and an entry on a public register anyone can check without taking the holder’s word for it — the lookup is live on the verify page, and answers definitively either way.
The Council is a private industry certification body, established in 2026 and funded by examination and membership fees. It is incorporated in Singapore as AI Assurance Council Pte. Ltd. (UEN 202640068G), the company you contract with under the terms of use.
Fundamentals and Professional, finance and accounting
AI first, human decides
The awareness tier, open to any adult
Then revalidation
§ 2 — What we do
Professional credentials, each earned by examination that tests applied judgement against a published anchor — every script marked by an AI assessor first and an independent human assessor second.
The credentials →Every credential carries a unique identifier and a permanent register entry. Anyone can verify a claim in seconds, without an account and without contacting the holder.
Verify a credential →Examination domains, the code of conduct, the candidate handbook, and every policy are published and version controlled — built to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17024, claimed as design, not as conformity.
The scheme documents →§ 3 — Scheme principles
Four rules govern every certification we issue. They are published so they can be held against us — and where we fail one, that is a defect you can raise under our appeals and complaints procedure.
The credential is earned by examination and by nothing else. The examination fee includes the Council’s self-paced video course, and using it is optional. No course, the Council’s or anyone else’s, is required to sit, gives an advantage in marking, or is visible to an examiner. Nobody who writes or delivers preparation writes, marks or moderates the examination it prepares for, and pass rates by preparation route are published each year. A credential you can only obtain by buying the course is a receipt, not a credential.
Every examination puts the candidate in front of a deployment they have not seen and asks them to produce a defensible assessment of it. Format varies by track, but recalling clause numbers demonstrates nothing about competence and is never what earns the credential.
Each carries a unique identifier that any third party can verify, without contacting the holder. A credential that cannot be independently checked provides no assurance to an employer.
AI assurance practice is moving too fast for a lifetime certificate to mean anything, so every credential carries a validity period and must be revalidated.
§ 4 — Governance
Certification decisions rest with the Certification Panel, people who take no part in writing or delivering the Council's preparation course and hold no commercial interest in the outcome. But a panel is only a name for where a decision lands. What makes the decision worth anything is what it is separated from, and three separations hold on every script the Council marks.
The first of them bites on the Council itself. The examination fee includes a preparation course the Council writes, which is a conflict of interest inside the scheme rather than outside it, and it is contained by structure rather than by assurance. The people who write the course have no part in the examination, the course is built from the published syllabus and never from live items, and pass rates by preparation route are published each year, the Council's own route among them. A material difference between routes is treated as a defect in the scheme to be fixed, not as a selling point.
They are set out below so they can be audited rather than taken on trust. No script is marked except under them; every cohort marked adds to the record they can be audited against. An allegation of credential misuse or professional misconduct goes to a conduct panel convened for that case, with at least one member external to the Council.
Nobody who writes or delivers preparation for a track, inside the Council or outside it, takes any part in setting its examination, marking a script, or deciding a result. The Council’s course is built from the published syllabus and never from live items. Assessors are not told which preparation route a candidate took, or whether they took one at all.
Applies to every track and every preparation route, the Council’s own includedMarking establishes a mark against the published rubric. The certification decision is taken separately from the marking, and no adverse decision — a fail, a suspension, a withdrawal — is ever made on an automated mark alone.
Applies to every script, automated and human markedAnyone with a part in scheme content, marking or certification decisions declares their interests and stands down where one bites. Any candidate may challenge a result under the published procedure, and the review is done by someone who had no part in the original decision.
Appeals and complaints procedure — publishedMarking is a function of the Certification Panel, and it is done by two assessors in a fixed order.
Every script is marked against the published rubric by an AI assessor, which produces a provisional mark and flags where a response diverges from the rubric. It is a first pass and a consistency check across the marking round. It is never the result.
A qualified human assessor marks the same script independently. A result is issued only when both marks concur; where they diverge, the human assessor reviews the divergence and the human determination is final. Every result carries the name of the human decision-maker who can be asked to account for it.
Neither assessor is arbitrary. The panel appoints human assessors against defined competence criteria and may remove them; it approves the AI assessor before use, validates it against the same rubric, and may withdraw it at any time. A marking tool the panel cannot withdraw is a tool nobody can be held responsible for. After each examination cycle, the agreement rate between the automated and human marks — and how often they diverged — is published.
No result is issued on automated marking alone, and no adverse decision — a fail, a suspension, a withdrawal — is ever made without a human assessor. How a result is appealed.
§ 5 — Join
Membership is the standing relationship around a credential — never the credential itself.
New credentials, syllabus issues, and examination windows — certification announcements only, no marketing.