A technical test generated from the role’s competency map, languages with spoken assessment at CEFR level, and a behavioral profile. No webcam, no screen recording: integrity comes from defending your own work out loud.
An off-the-shelf test is the same for a fintech and an agency, and it is exactly the test that cheating tools promise to solve, by name. The market’s answer was more surveillance, but fraud in proctored tests rose from 16% to 35% in one year.
The question is original, generated from that role. And the candidate explains their own work live, answering questions built from what they themselves wrote.
A deterministic selector chooses what to test from the competencies approved on the role, and the rest of the time budget goes to a real work sample. The model drafts the questions one by one.
The grading rubric is born from the expected deliverable itself, with concrete anchors rather than generic adjectives.
Below what the stage expects: becomes an interview probe, not a cut.
"Walk me through the most recent A/B test you designed: the hypothesis, the sample size, and what you decided when the result came back ambiguous."
Adjustments are audited. The score is informative: it never eliminates anyone on its own.
After the submission, the candidate answers live to questions built from what they wrote, and the second reacts to what they said in the first. Fifteen minutes, with no chance to revise.
Whoever did their own work explains it naturally. Whoever did not has nothing to say, and the empty answer is a signal in itself.
Tell me about a product decision you changed after talking to a user. What did you believe before, and what changed your mind?
"Your assessment flags discovery without an impact metric. In the case you just described, what changed in the numbers afterwards?"
Surveillance answers whether someone else is in the room. It does not answer who did the work, and that is the question that matters.
The psychometrics of the behavioral profile are calculated in code; the model only narrates the result. And behavioral never becomes a cut-off score, it becomes interview material.
A guide per stage with a rubric of anchors, signals to look for and red flags, plus probes built from that candidate’s gaps.
See inside →InterviewsVisual journeyStages on a canvas with parallel groups and transitions by outcome. External interviewers score through a portal of their own.
See inside →ScreeningAssessment per candidateA score across four dimensions with text for each one, a read of the career, strengths, concerns and gaps, plus the odds of acceptance.
See inside →It takes a real role to see EVO work, not a canned example.
Start using it