# Assessment integrity: working checklist

Companion to https://lunaprompts.com/blog/ai-cheating-detection-hiring-guide

LunaPrompts Editorial. Original illustrative exercise.

## Define the workflow

- Role or campaign:
- Owner:
- Decision this workflow should support:
- Candidate instructions and support route:

## Worked example: Review a pasted implementation

A candidate submits a retry helper in one large paste. The task allows a coding assistant but requires the candidate to review the output. The interviewer points to the retry condition and asks what happens when the first request succeeds but its response is lost.

A useful answer identifies the risk of a duplicate operation and connects a proposed change to that failure. Ask the candidate to adjust the example or write a check. The evidence is the explanation and modification, rather than the confidence of the delivery.

Now change the original rule: imagine the same task explicitly prohibited outside assistance. The same technical explanation would demonstrate understanding, but it would not by itself resolve whether the rule was followed. Record those as separate questions. This prevents technical competence from erasing a policy issue, or a session anomaly from erasing demonstrated competence.

A practical review note has four parts: the rule candidates received, the observed event, the candidate’s account, and the reason for the reviewer’s conclusion. If an important fact remains unknown, keep it unknown in the report instead of filling the gap with an accusation.

## Review checklist

- [ ] Tool policy: The exact instructions sent before the task
  Evidence or open question:
- [ ] Observed event: A timestamp and the relevant work
  Evidence or open question:
- [ ] Follow-up: A specific question or small adaptation
  Evidence or open question:
- [ ] Conclusion: What is supported, unresolved, or explained
  Evidence or open question:

## Working session

Take one example flag and write the candidate-facing follow-up before looking at the overall score. Check whether a second reviewer can distinguish observations from interpretations in your note.

## Avoid this mistake

Do not turn a detector score into a claim about a named tool. If the environment cannot establish which application was used, the report should not name one. Ask the vendor what the signal measures and what supporting evidence a reviewer can inspect.

## Record the next step

- Observed evidence:
- What remains uncertain:
- Person responsible:
- Next action and date:

Keep candidate examples anonymous when sharing this worksheet.