How a work sample becomes evidence.
One loop, three actors: Fluent configures the work sample from your job description, the candidate works it in a controlled AI workspace, and our subject-matter expert reads the evidence. Role-relevant AI judgment, measured end to end.
From job description to work-sample contract.
For enterprises: a job description in, an editable work-sample contract out.
EEOC: the US federal standard for fair selection procedures. NYC Local Law 144: New York City’s law requiring bias audits of automated employment decision tools.
Four dimensions. Verify is the spine.
The candidate gets a realistic case: a messy source packet, a logged AI assistant with full-strength tools, and a real deliverable to build in a controlled sandbox. Everything they do maps to four dimensions of AI judgment. Verify carries the heaviest weight, about 25%: the hardest signal to fake and the one nobody else measures well.
Every case is adversarially quality-checked before it ships: solvable from the packet alone, screened for fairness, and calibrated so careful verification separates candidates. Each role’s contract configures its rubric onto these four dimensions, and each candidate runs a unique variant of equal difficulty. The method and its research lineage live on the research page.
Everything lands in the ledger.
Prompts, AI drafts referenced, materials opened, spans verified or disputed against source, claims flagged, memo edits, the decision recorded.
Identical deliverables, different humans. The process is the product.
The standards behind the score.
With 38.5% of interviews now flagged for undisclosed AI use, per Fabric, the posture here is not more proctoring: redesign the assessment so cheating is irrelevant.