Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd. I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd? I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions). It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself. I do however come across an entry that his the a similar meaning you're looking for here: "by".

By. 3. a. According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc. Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989. The difference here, I think, has been touched on: this meaning implies some obligation or requirement. No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per". It just doesn't fit in this situation.

Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd. I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd? I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions). It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself. I did however come across an entry that has a similar meaning to what you're looking for here: "by".

By. 3. a. According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc. Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989. The difference here, I think, has been touched on: this meaning implies some obligation or requirement. No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per". It just doesn't fit in this situation.

Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd. I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd? I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions). It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself. I do however come across an entry that his the a similar meaning you're looking for here: "by".

By. 3. a. According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc. Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as a late as 1989. The difference here, I think, has been touched on: this meaning implies some obligation or requirement. No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per". It just doesn't fit in this situation.

Though I would understand both in written and oral communication, I find the first to be pretty odd. I wouldn't ever use it, and strongly prefer the second, "according to".

Why is this so odd? I looked a bit in the OED at the use of "as per" (odd in itself for combining two prepositions). It was first used in 1869 as a "slang" form "as per usual" by itself. I do however come across an entry that his the a similar meaning you're looking for here: "by".

By. 3. a. According to; as stated, indicated, or directed by, as per advice, per instructions, per invoice, per ledger, etc. Usually preceded by as.

This was used as early as 1446 and as late as 1989. The difference here, I think, has been touched on: this meaning implies some obligation or requirement. No other entries seem to come close, and this matches my own mental lexicon for "per" and "as per". It just doesn't fit in this situation.