01
Admit what take-homes no longer prove
Without integrity controls, a take-home primarily measures access to tools, time, and coaching-not necessarily the candidate’s process. That does not mean abandon take-homes. It means stop treating submission quality as proof of authorship.
- Assume AI drafting is available unless you verify otherwise
- Separate content quality from authenticity observations
- Plan a live or timed follow-up that probes ownership
02
Write a clear assistance policy
Ambiguous rules create unfair enforcement. State whether preparation tools are allowed, whether live assistance is forbidden, and what happens when integrity flags appear. Some roles may allow approved libraries; others may forbid all external help.
- Publish rules before the candidate starts
- Distinguish preparation vs live ghostwriting
- Offer retest paths when evidence is ambiguous
03
Redesign the task for process evidence
Ask for decisions, tradeoffs, and reflection-not only a finished artifact. Behaviorally anchored rubrics should reward ownership, judgment, and specificity. Adaptive follow-ups and consistency probes make ghostwritten fluency harder to sustain.
- Require short process notes or decision logs
- Score evidence dimensions, not polish alone
- Add later consistency probes across related prompts