Headquarters: Tel Aviv, Israel
Assessed: Skill assessment and job simulation platform with AI scoring of candidate responses.
Rubric: version 1. Search protocol applied and all sources accessed: 2026-09-22.
Documented 1, partial 1, absent 6, of eight criteria. This records what is published about the validity and fairness of the scores. It is not an assessment of the product, the model or the underlying science.
| # | Criterion | Level |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation | A |
| C2 | Validity coefficients reported with sample size and uncertainty | A |
| C3 | Adverse impact reported by named subgroup | A |
| C4 | Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome | A |
| C5 | Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes | P |
| C6 | Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score | D |
| C7 | Independent review named and the reviewer identified | A |
| C8 | Reliability reported, and reported by group | A |
C1. Technical manual or validity report publicly available without a sales conversation
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C2. Validity coefficients reported with sample size and uncertainty
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C3. Adverse impact reported by named subgroup
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C4. Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C5. Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes
Partial.
"Create clear, consistent assessments in any language with built-in AI translation and writing support."
Source: https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
Machine translation of the instrument is offered. Nothing is published on whether scores are comparable across the languages produced.
C6. Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score
Documented.
"The final hiring decision should always remain in human hands. If you disagree with an AI determination, overriding it is simple"; the scoring is described openly: "The AI compares each candidate’s answer to those examples and assigns a score based on similarity" and "The final score represents the percentage of rules the answer successfully satisfied".
Source: https://www.canditech.io/blog/ai-auto-scoring-skill-assessments/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
The mechanism by which the score is formed is described plainly, and an override route is documented. The route is the reviewer route rather than a candidate one.
C7. Independent review named and the reviewer identified
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
C8. Reliability reported, and reported by group
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.canditech.io/ai-candidate-assessment-software/ (accessed 2026-09-22).
Absent records the outcome of the published search protocol on 2026-09-22. Where a source is supplied that the search did not reach, the cell is re-scored under the corrections policy, with the date of the change recorded and the previous level retained.
Back to the index, the rubric and the methods note