Headquarters: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Assessed: Asynchronous video interviewing with transcript-based AI ranking.
Rubric: version 1. Search protocol applied and all sources accessed: 2026-09-22.
Documented 0, partial 2, 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 | P |
| C5 | Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes | A |
| C6 | Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score | P |
| 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.willo.video/intelligence (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.willo.video/intelligence (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.willo.video/intelligence (accessed 2026-09-22).
The vendor recommends audits to its customers. No audit of the product itself is published.
C4. Scored construct named and defined, not described only by outcome
Partial.
"evaluates applicants against your own definition of what good looks like" and "ranks your pool by alignment".
Source: https://www.willo.video/intelligence (accessed 2026-09-22).
The stated criterion is the customer definition of a suitable candidate rather than a psychological construct. The page states that facial recognition, voice pattern scoring and biometric data are not used.
C5. Evidence of comparability across languages, versions or delivery modes
Absent.
No public source was found for this criterion by the search protocol.
Pages examined include https://www.willo.video/intelligence (accessed 2026-09-22).
C6. Human oversight documented, with a candidate route to contest a score
Partial.
"the AI prepares the evidence, you make the call, and every shortlisting decision stays with you"
Source: https://www.willo.video/blog/ai-candidate-screening (accessed 2026-09-22).
Human oversight is stated. No candidate-facing route to query or contest a ranking was found.
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.willo.video/intelligence (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.willo.video/intelligence (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