Strong answers did not remove the need to review how they were produced.
Use targeted follow-up without treating every integrity signal as cheating.
Scenario context
Enterprise technology hiring team · remote assessment campaign · 1,000 interviews
The problem
The hiring team wants confidence in remote assessments while avoiding a process that punishes candidates for technical interruptions or other innocent causes. Review capacity must also be planned rather than treated as free.
The proposed approach
- Assume 120 of 1,000 sessions are flagged by the configured integrity workflow. Review each for 12 minutes.
- Clear 90 after contextual review and invite the remaining 30 to supervised reassessment.
- Assume 24 complete reassessment: 18 meet the rubric and six do not. Six invited candidates remain unassessed.
Where people stay involved
Reviewers consider context and accommodations. Meeting or missing a reassessment rubric is an assessment outcome, not proof of earlier cheating.
What the model calculates
The scenario requires 24 reviewer hours. Seventy-five percent of flags are cleared on initial review, and six candidates remain unresolved because reassessment has not completed.
What it does not establish
Do not describe the cleared share as a measured false-positive rate or the six lower reassessment outcomes as proven fraud. Reassessment interviewer time is additional.
Book a demo · HirePlusPlus home