Interview Report User Guide

Review the report in this order:

Under Advanced Report Version:

The Integrity Score is a 0–10 score related to interview integrity risk. A higher score means lower observed risk.

Potential Violations refers to the number of detected risk events.

This does not mean confirmed cheating. A potential violation may simply indicate behavior such as screen-directed gaze, rapid glancing, possible note-checking, or another signal that should be interpreted in context.

The Summary provides a high-level interpretation of:

The Summary should be read as a directional assessment, not as a final verdict.

This section is the most important parts of the report. It evaluates whether the candidate’s performance is stable and internally consistent.

This field summarizes the overall risk level, such as Low, Medium, or High.

The risk level should be interpreted as a directional assessment, not as a final conclusion. A higher risk level means the report found stronger or more repeated signals that may require manual review. A lower risk level means the candidate’s behavior and answers were more consistent with independent, spontaneous performance.

Risk increasers are signals that may raise concern about possible external assistance, especially when they align with changes in answer quality, timing, or follow-up performance.

Examples include:

These signals should still be reviewed in context. A risk increaser is not proof of misconduct by itself, but it may justify closer manual review.

Risk reducers are signals that lower the likelihood of external assistance, such as:

Risk reducers are especially important when minor behavior events are present. For example, brief screen glances may be less concerning if the candidate provides detailed, consistent, and explainable answers throughout the interview.

Benign explanations describe reasonable non-suspicious interpretations of observed behavior.

For example, screen scanning may be consistent with referencing personal notes, reviewing a resume, or recalling structured information.

The Suspicious Behavior section lists specific behavioral risk events.

Each event may include:

This section evaluates candidate competence question by question.

Each Q&A typically includes:

When reading this section, do not focus only on the numeric score. Also check whether the candidate:

Consistency metrics are used as supporting indicators when there are no clear behavioral anomalies, or when behavioral evidence is limited.

They help reviewers evaluate whether the candidate’s answers appear stable, natural, and internally coherent across the interview. These metrics do not prove misconduct. Instead, they provide an additional way to assess integrity risk based on the candidate’s answer patterns, reasoning quality, timing, and ability to handle follow-up questions.

In other words, when the report does not detect obvious suspicious behavior, consistency metrics help answer the question: "Does the candidate’s performance look like a stable and natural demonstration of their own ability?"

What it checks:
Whether the candidate gives consistent explanations within the same topic area.

How it supports integrity review:
When no behavioral anomaly is detected, stable topic consistency helps support the conclusion that the candidate understands the subject and is answering independently.

If the candidate changes definitions, contradicts earlier explanations, or shows major inconsistency within the same topic, it may reduce confidence in the answer quality and raise the need for closer review.

Risk reducer:
The candidate explains related concepts consistently across multiple questions.

Risk increaser:
The candidate gives conflicting explanations within the same topic without acknowledging or correcting the inconsistency.

What it checks:
Whether the candidate can maintain answer quality when the interviewer asks follow-up questions.

How it supports integrity review:
Follow-up questions are harder to prepare in advance. If the candidate can clarify, expand, and defend their answers during follow-ups, it supports genuine understanding.

If the candidate gives a strong initial answer but cannot answer simple follow-ups, the report may lower confidence in the candidate’s demonstrated competence. In the absence of behavioral evidence, this should be treated primarily as a confidence reducer, not as proof of external assistance.

Risk reducer:
The candidate remains clear and accurate under follow-up questioning.

Risk increaser:
The candidate gives polished initial answers but fails to explain, adapt, or reproduce the reasoning when probed.

What it checks:
Whether the candidate uses a stable reasoning process across answers.

How it supports integrity review:
A natural interview usually shows a consistent reasoning style. For example, the candidate may restate the problem, explain assumptions, walk through steps, and validate the answer.

If the candidate’s reasoning style changes sharply across questions, such as moving from step-by-step reasoning to conclusion-only answers, the report may reduce confidence in the reliability of the performance.

Risk reducer:
The candidate shows a consistent reasoning structure across different questions.

Risk increaser:
The candidate suddenly provides highly polished answers without showing intermediate reasoning.

What it checks:
Whether the candidate’s performance pattern makes sense across easy, medium, and hard questions.

How it supports integrity review:
In a natural interview, easier questions are usually answered more confidently, while harder questions may require more thought, clarification, or trade-off discussion.

If the candidate struggles with basic questions but performs unusually well on much harder questions without a clear explanation, the report may flag this as an unusual capability pattern.

Risk reducer:
Performance scales naturally with question difficulty.

Risk increaser:
The candidate shows unexplained extreme spikes in capability, especially when harder answers are much stronger than easier ones.

What it checks:
Whether the timing and flow of answers appear natural.

How it supports integrity review:
Temporal consistency looks at the rhythm of the interview: pauses, response timing, answer development, and whether polished answers appear naturally or abruptly.

When no direct behavioral anomaly is detected, timing patterns can still help reviewers understand whether the candidate’s performance feels organic.

Risk reducer:
The candidate answers with natural pacing, reasonable thinking time, and spontaneous explanation.

Risk increaser:
The candidate repeatedly shows long stalls followed by unusually polished answers, without showing visible reasoning or explanation development.

Consistency metrics are most useful when there are no obvious suspicious behavior events.

Hard-to-fake signals are strong indicators of genuine competence.

Examples include:

These signals are important because a candidate who can explain concepts under probing, give specific examples, and maintain consistency is less likely to be relying on external assistance.

The Interview Insights section summarizes strengths by category.

This section is useful for final hiring discussions because it converts individual answers into broader skill signals.

The AI fluency section indicates whether AI usage was observed and whether it appeared permitted.

Common fields include:

When AI use is not observed or not permitted, the AI fluency part will be not applicable.

Start with Integrity Score, Potential Violations, Summary, and Overall Consistency Analysis.

For each suspicious behavior event, check:

A brief glance or screen-directed gaze should be interpreted differently depending on the candidate’s answer quality.

If the candidate gives detailed, consistent, and explainable answers, the behavior may be low risk.

If the candidate gives sudden perfect answers after pauses, cannot explain follow-ups, or shows repeated external-assistance signals, the risk should be reviewed more carefully.

Give more weight to repeated patterns than isolated events.

Stable topic consistency, follow-up consistency, and reasoning consistency usually reduce integrity risk.

Use Interview Insights and Skill Reason to evaluate whether the candidate meets the role requirements.

Incorrect. Potential violations are risk signals, not confirmed cheating events.

Incorrect. Integrity Score measures integrity risk, not job fit or technical ability.