How do you explain a disputed AI trust flag to a candidate?
TL;DR: Show them the specific evidence, not just the score. "Your gaze moved off-screen every time you answered a technical question, for an average of 8 seconds" is defensible and discussable; "you scored 42 out of 100" invites an argument you can't win. A good trust report is built so a recruiter can walk a candidate through exactly what was flagged.
The claim
Candidates who are rejected partly on integrity grounds and only told a number, with no explanation, understandably escalate — to the recruiter, on social media, or to a lawyer. The way to prevent that isn't hiding the process, it's making the evidence specific and reviewable.
The evidence
Greenhouse's survey of 4,136 respondents found 91% had encountered suspected AI-generated answers in hiring, meaning most recruiters will eventually face this exact conversation — having a defensible, evidence-based script ready matters more than the underlying detection technology itself when it comes to candidate trust in the process.
Comparison: score-only vs evidence-based communication
| Approach | Candidate reaction |
|---|---|
| "Your trust score was 42/100" | Feels arbitrary, invites dispute of the number itself |
| "The system flagged three tab switches during the coding portion and a virtual camera signature" | Specific, falsifiable, and discussable |
Step-by-step: handling the conversation
- Pull the specific flags from the trust report before the conversation, not just the aggregate score.
- Lead with the behavior observed, not the verdict: describe what was flagged and when, in plain language.
- Give the candidate a chance to explain — a legitimate technical issue (frozen screen, connectivity) can produce similar flags to genuine cheating.
- Document the conversation and the candidate's response as part of the file, regardless of outcome.
- If the explanation is credible and no other flags corroborate concern, be willing to revisit the decision — this protects both fairness and the company's defensibility.
FAQ
Should candidates be shown the raw video, not just a description of flags? Depends on policy and jurisdiction, but at minimum a clear written description of what was flagged and when should be available for a dispute conversation.
What if the candidate has no good explanation? Document that clearly too — a specific, evidence-based rejection stands up far better than a vague one if the decision is ever questioned later.
Does this slow down the rejection process? Marginally, but a defensible explanation prevents the much larger cost of a disputed rejection escalating into a formal complaint or legal inquiry.
By Pinal Dave Last updated: 2026-08-03