Public Consultation
Certification Pathways Consultation
Open 9 October to 20 November 2026. We are consulting on a draft model for professional AI certification: six streams, three levels, eighteen certifications. It is a draft for comment, not a finished syllabus, and we want to hear what is wrong with it before the exams are written.
Why we are asking
We would rather hear this now
A single route will not cover everyone who works with AI. This draft is our attempt at something broader. It is almost certainly wrong somewhere, and we would rather find out before the exams are written.
If you use AI at work
Does the Core stream describe what you actually do, or does it stop short of it?
If you build it
Is the Developer and Builder route recognisable as the job, or is it missing the parts that take the time?
If you secure or govern it
Three of the six streams sit here. Is that the right weight, or has something been forced into Security that belongs elsewhere?
If you hire against it
Are Foundation, Associate and Practitioner distinct enough to put in a job advert and mean something?
If you teach it
Could you build a course against this, and would the certification at the end be worth your learners' time?
If you carry the risk
Does the Executive stream cover the decisions you are actually accountable for?
The model
Six streams, three levels, 18 certifications
Every stream runs Foundation, Associate and Practitioner. Foundation is about understanding, Associate about applying, and Practitioner about owning the outcome. Six streams across three levels gives 18 career certifications.
The streams are Core, Developer and Builder, AI Security, Governance Risk and Assurance, Data and Evaluation, and Executive.
Endorsements sit on top of a Practitioner certification. They cover specialist skills, sector context and standards such as ISO/IEC 42001. They are not extra streams.
The full model is on one page. Download it before you comment.
To be clear
What this is not
It is not a finished syllabus. Nothing here is fixed, and the structure itself is open to challenge, not only the detail.
It is not a competing standard. The pathways are meant to help people show what they can already do against frameworks such as NIST, ISO/IEC 42001 and the EU AI Act, not to replace them.
It is not a regulated qualification. UK AI Council certifications are industry certifications issued by an independent membership organisation. They do not sit on a national qualifications framework.
Have your say
Tell us what you would change
Answer whichever questions you have a view on. Comments close on 20 November, and we will publish a summary of what we heard before any syllabus is written.
What happens next
What we will do with this
Comments close on 20 November. We will publish a summary of what we heard, including the parts we disagreed with, before any syllabus is written.
Advisory boards will be formed for each stream to shape and quality assure the content. Registering interest on the form does not commit you to anything. We will be in touch about how you could contribute.