Acentecom hiring · design preview · v3.3 — calibrated against 11 already-judged people
No options to read, so there is no menu of company values to pick from. Each question hides what it measures — they think Q1 is the standard opener and Q3 is a skills test. Then an AI follow-up calls the bluff live, and the cross-read catches what one convincing answer can hide.
Slides, not a scroll
One question per screen. Answer, continue, next thing arrives. Between them, a short card about the company — no question on it. It breaks the interrogation rhythm, and it sells the place to someone who has options.
An interstitial must never sit immediately before a question it would prime. The intensity card in particular goes after the Sunday question, never before it — telling someone we work weekends and then asking what they did last Sunday produces a rehearsed answer and destroys the item.
Three integrity layers
Open questions are more exposed to a pasted answer than multiple choice was. These three make that expensive rather than pretending it can't happen.
The model reads what they just wrote and asks one follow-up at its weakest point — before they can move on.
Why this is the strongest tool available: a prepared or pasted answer has nothing underneath it, and the follow-up is generated from their own words in real time, so it cannot be anticipated. It also turns the vaguest answers — normally just a weak grade — into a second, sharper data point.
Paste and keystroke telemetry, captured per answer.
Before question one, they type — by hand, paste disabled — "I will answer in my own words."
Two reasons it earns its place. A commitment made before the task, in your own hand, measurably raises honesty on what follows — signing at the top beats signing at the bottom. And it gives us a clean typing sample from this specific person: their real cadence and error rate, which every later answer is compared against.
Someone who types the pledge at 38 wpm with normal typos and then produces answer four at 140 wpm with none has told us something without being asked.
The part a candidate cannot compose against
Every answer is graded on its own, and then all seven are read together. A person can write one convincing paragraph. Writing seven that stay consistent — without knowing which consistency is being checked — is a different problem. Each contradiction below becomes a quotable line for the interviewer instead of a vague bad feeling.
Open questions are more exposed to that than multiple choice was. Four things blunt it, and they compound: four of the seven demand facts only they hold — their number, their failure, their colleague, their last six months, where a chatbot can only produce a plausible blank. Generic fluency is itself the tell — the rubric scores specificity, so a polished answer with no particulars lands weak on its own merits, no detection needed. They're told the interviewer has their answers, so inflating one means defending it out loud. And paste/dwell telemetry raises a flag for the interviewer, never an automatic rejection.
Sample result · what everyone sees — recruiters, hiring managers, Uzi, Liam
Direction is a new band, added 2026-08-09 after calibration. It reads one thing: when they were told to do something they disagreed with, did they do it — and if they didn't, did anyone find out from them? It exists because the run passed a real media buyer the company had removed: he graded A on smart, B on work and B on loves-the-job, and was let go for weeks of ignoring a direct one-line test request. The three pillars are correct and they are still only three — this reports alongside them and never gates, the same as Craft and AI. Bands: executes and argues after · executes reluctantly · argues then executes · decides alone.
Contradictions found across the seven
Flags
Three flags were added 2026-08-09 after calibration: wont_take_direction unilateral_on_process output_without_outcome. The last one closes a plain gap — producing volume with nothing to show for it is the single most common removal cause in the meeting record, and it had no flag. no_number fires when a candidate cannot produce a figure; it does not fire when they produce the wrong kind of figure, which is what "29 creatives in 22 days" is.
Ask her in the call
Preview only — nothing is deployed and nothing is calibrated yet. Best next step: give me two candidates you'd hire and two you wouldn't, and I'll run their answers past this rubric to see whether it separates them the way you would.