Skip to article
THE HIRING FIELD GUIDE / 07

They have the answer. Ask what would change it.

Use short, submission-specific follow-ups to explore understanding, adaptation, and the limits of a candidate’s solution.

Explore ai viva
FIELD GUIDE / 07EVALUATE FAIRLY
AI Viva
01Submit

Initial evidence: sample classifications

02Change

Follow-up: define the ambiguous case

03Explain

Evidence: a defensible rule + test cases

Illustrative stock portrait
Technical interviewerA practical perspective for this guide

Editorial illustration. Stock portrait, not a customer endorsement.

A practical guide for recruiters, talent leaders & engineering managers Get the working checklist
In this guide

The code runs. The prompt classifies the sample inputs. The architecture has the expected boxes. Starting a completely new interview now would leave the most useful material untouched: the candidate’s own work.

A Viva creates a focused conversation around that material. It asks for the decision behind a line, the consequence of a change, or the test that would make an answer more trustworthy.

The short answer

LunaPrompts AI Drill Down, also called AI Viva, asks candidates follow-up questions about their assessment work. It helps hiring teams explore the reasoning behind a piece of code, a prompt, or a system design while that work is still part of the evaluation.

Drill into a support-classification prompt

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW / 07
01Submit02Change03Explain
Illustrative stock portraitTechnical interviewerIllustrative scenario01 / 03

A prompt classifies the examples

Each supplied support request has one obvious category.

Initial evidence: sample classifications
Success on a simple sample is a starting point.
Original editorial example. Select a step to pause and explore it. The full scenario is explained below.

Suppose a candidate creates a prompt that assigns support tickets to Billing, Technical, or Account. The supplied examples are clear, so the initial output looks strong. Add a ticket that says, “My invoice increased and the service stopped working.”

Ask which category the prompt should select and why. The goal is not to hide a secret correct label. The goal is to see whether the candidate notices an undefined business rule. They might ask for a priority policy, propose an ambiguous category, or route the case for review. The answer should fit the stated workflow.

Then ask for two additional test examples. One should check the chosen rule; the other should challenge it. This connects explanation to an artifact the team can inspect. A polished verbal answer without a change to the task remains incomplete evidence.

Keep the discussion focused. One well-chosen change can reveal more than a long sequence of generic questions. For reviewers, record the original behavior, the changed condition, and the candidate’s response. Use the same level of challenge across candidates while grounding the question in each person’s actual submission.

Follow the work instead of restarting the interview

AI Viva uses the candidate's assessment as the subject of the conversation. In the configured workflow, the discussion can happen during the assessment or as a follow-up to completed work.

For coding, the discussion might explore an implementation choice or an unhandled input. For prompt engineering, it might examine an instruction, an output constraint, or a failed example. For system design, it might investigate a component, a bottleneck, or an alternative architecture.

The purpose is to add explanatory evidence to the practical result.

What useful drill-down questions look like

Explain a decision

“You chose a queue for this part of the workflow. What problem does it solve, and what new failure case does it introduce?”

This tests whether the candidate can connect an architectural choice to a requirement rather than repeat a familiar pattern.

Investigate a failure

“Your prompt works for the first document but returns an unsupported answer for the second. What would you inspect first?”

This explores diagnosis. A useful answer should connect a proposed investigation to the behavior that went wrong.

Adapt the solution

“The API can now receive the same request twice. What would need to change?”

This checks whether the candidate can reason beyond the exact problem they prepared for.

Discuss a limit

“What would you want to test before putting this into production?”

This invites the candidate to identify uncertainty and prioritize verification. Recognizing an unresolved issue can demonstrate judgment even when the initial answer is incomplete.

Use Viva to deepen review, including integrity review

An explanation can support confidence in authorship and understanding. A contradiction may identify a topic for further review. Neither a smooth answer nor a hesitant one should settle the candidate's integrity by itself.

Consider the actual submission, the permitted tool policy, and the specificity of the candidate's explanation. For a technical role, the goal is to understand their reasoning about the work, not to reward a particular speaking style.

A review framework your team can use

The following is an editorial checklist for this workflow. Adapt it to the role, the candidate journey, and your configured environment.

Review areaWhat to establish
ExplainWhy did you choose this rule?
ChallengeWhat happens with this ambiguous input?
AdaptShow the smallest change you would make
VerifyWhich example would show the change failed?
A mistake worth avoiding

Do not score speaking speed as technical understanding. Let the candidate use the submitted work to explain a concrete decision.

Put the guide to work

Choose one line, prompt instruction, or component from a sample submission. Write an explain question, a changed condition, and a verification question.

Download the editable worksheet to record the decisions and open questions with your team. The examples in this guide are illustrative, not customer results or validated selection rules. Product availability and setup depend on the workflow agreed for your account.

Bring this to your next working session.

A focused checklist, a worked scenario, and questions to resolve together.

Download worksheet

Frequently asked questions

How is AI Viva different from an AI interview?

AI Viva examines a specific assessment submission. An AI interview can cover broader role requirements and serve as a separate screening round.

Can Viva be used when AI coding tools are allowed?

Yes. Candidates can explain the work they directed, how they reviewed it, and which parts they changed. That discussion helps evaluate responsibility for an AI-assisted result.

Does difficulty explaining an answer prove copying?

No. It identifies a gap that needs context. Reviewers should consider the candidate's work, the question, and any communication or assessment constraints before reaching a conclusion.

Keep building your hiring workflow

Explore ai viva with LunaPrompts or browse all 19 hiring field guides.

KEEP EXPLORINGAll 19 field guides
PUT THE GUIDE TO WORK

Bring the role.
We’ll help you find the signal.

Explore a hiring workflow built around the work your next hire will actually do.

Explore your hiring workflow
Colleagues discussing work around a table; illustrative stock photography