For employers
Write requirements against domains and levels instead of tool names, and you can still recruit for them in two years. Everything on this page is copyable and needs no permission.
Tool names date. Competences do not.
Which level the role actually needs
| Level | The role needs it when | Typical |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | The person uses AI output but does not decide anything on it alone, and escalates rather than resolves. | Most roles |
| L2 | The person produces work with AI in familiar situations, to an established procedure, and documents it. | The working majority |
| L3 | The person faces non-routine situations with competing constraints, chooses an approach, and answers for the choice. | One or two domains per senior role |
| L4 | The person sets the standard others follow and is accountable for outcomes at organisational scale. | Rare; heads of function |
One fragment per level, ready to drop in
Any role using AI tools incidentally
You will work alongside AI systems in this role. We expect competence at level L1 (Aware) in domain D6 (Evaluation and assurance) of the AI Competence Framework v1.29: you can describe why AI output requires evaluation and identify when to escalate. No credential is required; we assess this in conversation at interview.
Practitioner using AI in daily work
Required: AI Competence Framework v1.29 at level L2 (Applied) in D6 (Evaluation and assurance) and D2 (Data and information). You will produce evaluation records for outputs you rely on. A credential is welcome but not required.
Senior practitioner or lead
Required: AI Competence Framework v1.29 at L3 (Proficient) in D6 (Evaluation and assurance), with L2 in D8 (Security). At L3 you will design evaluation approaches for non-routine work, justify the trade-offs, and review the work of others.
Head of function, standard-setter
Required: AI Competence Framework v1.29 at L4 (Advanced) in D7 (Governance and accountability) and L3 in D6. At L4 you will set the standard others work to and hold accountability for outcomes across the function.
What your teams hold, and where the risk is
| Role | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | D8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst | L2 | L2 | L2 | L1 | — | L2 | L1 | L1 |
| Engineer | L2 | L3 | L2 | L3 | L3 | L2 | L1 | L3 |
| Product manager | L2 | L2 | L2 | L1 | L2 | L2 | L2 | L1 |
| Team lead | L2 | L2 | L2 | L2 | L2 | L3 | L3 | L2 |
| Head of function | L2 | L3 | L2 | L2 | L3 | L3 | L4 | L3 |
| Assurance reviewer | L2 | L3 | L2 | L2 | L2 | L4 | L3 | L3 |
Illustrative targets, not a recommendation. A dash means the role does not need the domain.
Questions derived from the indicators, not from the statement text
Record the basis on which an AI output was accepted for use.
Show me an evaluation record you wrote. Talk me through it.
What did you write down that you were tempted to leave out?
A real artefact, and an account of a decision that was uncomfortable.
Report the limits of an evaluation to the person relying on it.
Tell me about a time you had to tell someone your evaluation could not answer their question.
How did they respond, and what did you do next?
Evidence they said it out loud to someone with more authority than them.
Diagnose how untrusted content reached a system's instruction path.
Walk me through an injection path you found, in any system.
What did you change, and how did you confirm it worked?
A specific path, a specific fix, and a verification step.
Apply the organisation's data-handling rules to material entering an AI system.
What have you refused to put into an AI system, and why?
Who did you check with, and what did they say?
A concrete refusal.
Using the framework for performance management is a different instrument
The framework describes competence: what a person can do. Performance management is about what a person did, with particular support and particular constraints.