01
The coding-assessment integrity problem
Modern copilots can complete medium take-homes in minutes. Pair-programming theater on a video call can still hide a second window. Interviewers grade the artifact, not the process-and later wonder why on-the-job debugging looks nothing like the screen.
- AI-written solutions that pass unit tests but lack transferable reasoning
- Hidden overlays and second devices during live coding
- Copy/paste and scripted-response patterns that look “too clean”
- Inconsistent stories when asked how they arrived at the approach
02
What Honrly monitors and reviews
Integrity signals focus on assistance and session anomalies-not invasive keystroke logging by default. Reviewers get structured context so they can distinguish possible assistance from proven misconduct.
- Suspicious apps, overlays, and assistance patterns during the session
- Evidence timelines for human review after the fact
- Optional follow-up behavioral questions on trade-offs, constraints, and debugging
- Policy-aware design: allow approved tools when the job uses them
03
Pair integrity with evidence interviews
A green test suite is not ownership. After a coding round, ask candidates to explain assumptions they were least confident about, what they would change under a latency constraint, or when they would delay a decision. Score specificity, judgment, and consistency-not whether the answer sounds senior.
