It asks follow-up questions, then proves what it heard.
Not a form. Not a one-way video that nobody watches. A conversation that goes where the candidate's answer goes, and a written record your team can check line by line.
It follows the thread.
When a candidate says something thin, it asks what they actually did. When they say something substantial, it goes one level deeper rather than moving on to the next item on a list.
Candidates can speak or type. Both work equally well, because the transcript is what gets evaluated, not the delivery.
In my last role, I improved an ingest path for meter readings by making it idempotent. Initially, we had readings arriving twice due to a timing issue in our retry logic. I implemented a check for unique reading IDs and a timestamp window to ensure each reading was processed only once. I then verified the fix by monitoring our error logs and ensuring no duplicate readings were processed over a two-week period.
Thank you. What specific steps did you take to identify the timing issue in the retry logic?
The question is the interviewer's own, word for word, from one of the test rounds we run it through. The candidate is a scripted persona; the follow-up came from the answer.
The bar is set once, and it cannot move.
Your expectations for a role become its criteria at the first dossier, and every later candidate is read against the same list. Nobody is measured against a bar that shifted after they interviewed.
They showed it, and we can point at the words where they did.
The round never got to it. That is a gap in our questions, not a mark against them.
We asked directly, and what came back was a real weakness for this role.
The distinction matters. Tools that collapse "not asked" into "weak" quietly punish candidates for the interview's own blind spots. We keep them apart and label them plainly.
What your team gets, minutes after they finish.
A dossier per candidate
What they showed, what the round did not reach, and every finding tied to the exact sentence behind it. Open any quote and land on that line of the transcript.
A shortlist across all of them
Everyone who sat the round for one role, side by side on the same criteria. A recommendation you can argue with, never a verdict handed down.
The transcript behind both
Everything the candidate said, in order, with timestamps. The dossier is a reading of it, and you can always check the reading.