China–ASEAN AI Education Certification
Independent certification for AI education products in ASEAN — from content compliance to pedagogical effectiveness.
Check a certificate now
Any certificate, any time — status is live.
The AI education market in ASEAN is growing fast — but trust is lagging behind.
Six major ASEAN markets, six different data laws.
Buyers cannot tell good teaching from confident-sounding output.
Without a recognized signal, trust is rebuilt from zero on every deal.
We set the standard, run the audit, issue the certificate, and keep the registry public.
Multi-dimension certification audit
Optimization recommendations
Surveillance & change re-audit
Open verification & directory
Universal layer · 6
Applies to any AI product; unchanged when the standard extends elsewhere.
Product-form layer · 8
Specific to education AI assistants; another product type replaces this ring entirely.
Veto items · 3
Content compliance, security, privacy. A failure in any one means no pass.
01
Applies to every AI product we certify.
02
Specific to the education AI assistant product form.
The first four determine the verdict of a single audit; the fifth runs continuously after the certificate is issued.
Six required classes of material, from the model card to the data transfer plan.
A fixed, versioned test bank — that is what makes retests and cross-product comparison hold.
Coaxing out instructions, bypassing limits, crossing ethical lines — judged against preset criteria.
Education and AI specialists score independently; divergence goes to arbitration.
Periodic sampling after certification; material changes must be reported.
Every run is versioned and every raw response retained — any verdict traces back to its record.
Three rules decide a pass. The latter two were written after the first real audit surfaced cases the original rules missed.
Among content compliance, security, and privacy, a failure in any one means no pass. A high composite score does not offset it.
First case
On re-audit, privacy and data compliance scored 40 while most other scorable dimensions sat between 88 and 95. The verdict was still fail.
Standard 6.2.1
A dimension that cannot be determined for lack of evidence is excluded from the composite score and never counted as compliant. If it is a veto item, it is treated as not passed.
First case
In the first round five dimensions could not be scored for lack of evidence, one of them a veto item, so no pass was issued. Once filed, three of them fell into the failing range.
Standard 6.1.4 / 6.2.3
For questions outside the course, answering first and adding a redirect is graded as a fail. Such content lies outside the material under review, so no source can be checked.
First case
On the same case, the first response gave "Paris, about 2.2 million" then redirected, scoring 55. After remediation it stated the question was out of scope and stopped, scoring 90.
Standard 4.2.3
Pass, conditional pass, or fail — no grades. A re-audit covers only undetermined and remediated items.
Each audit also revises the criteria. Five such revisions came out of the first one.
No definition of what counts as a valid refusal
Standard 4.2.3: refusal criteria and counter-examples added
Cases were improvised: not reproducible or comparable
Test Bank V0.1 created; 12 cases structured and stored
No rule for how undeterminable dimensions count
Standards 6.1.4 and 6.2.3 written
Raw responses were not retained for later review
Evidence field activated; raw responses stored with each audit
Testing ran entirely by hand and did not scale
Automated harness built, with decisions split into three tiers
An audit produces two things: a verdict on the product, and revisions to the criteria themselves. Both are filed by version and can be reviewed independently.
Submit entity documents, product materials, the model card, and API evaluation credentials.
Document review, automated benchmark testing, red team evaluation, and double-blind scoring.
A verdict — pass, conditional pass, or fail — together with an improvement report.
Signed PDF certificate, a public directory entry, and an in-product trust mark.
Sampling audits across the 12-month term; model version changes are subject to mandatory reporting.
Typical timeline — 4 to 8 weeks per application.
The real binding force isn't the format. It's that anyone, anywhere, can check the current status of any certificate at any time.
Certificate events can additionally be anchored on AntChain BaaS. Planned as a paid add-on, not part of the default package.
Planned
A certified product may embed the trust mark under its certification agreement; once a certificate is revoked, the agreement requires mandatory takedown.
Contractual
Look up any certificate number and see its live status: Active, Suspended, Revoked or Expired.
Governs validity
A PDF certificate carrying a unique number in the form CERTVIA-EAA-YYYY-NNNN, checkable against the verification page at any time.
Always included
Every certificate is public, every status is live.
The first certifications are in progress. The registry opens publicly with the first certificate issued — every entry public, every status live from day one.
We build on a parent education-outbound programme that has been operating in ASEAN education for years.
CATECP is our own platform and operates within the SEAMEO ecosystem.
Scored double-blind by an education expert and an AI expert.
Any mainstream or in-house model — Qwen, DeepSeek, GPT and others — as long as you can provide a callable evaluation endpoint.
Typically 4 to 8 weeks from submission to issuance, depending on how quickly the applicant responds during the audit.
You still receive an improvement report setting out the gaps found and what to remediate. Re-tests are available within an agreed number of attempts.
12 months. Sampling audits continue throughout the term.
Model version changes are subject to mandatory reporting. A material change triggers an interim re-audit.
CATECP is operated by our own team and runs within the SEAMEO ecosystem. Certvia itself is an independent third-party certification body.
Audit data is held on infrastructure inside China; product data stays with the applicant. Cross-border handling follows PIPL together with the applicable ASEAN data protection regimes.
Yes. Suspension and revocation are published on the public verification page in real time, with the reason on record.
Now accepting applications for the first certification cohort.