Meritia case study · Anonymous participant feedback
Seven candidates.
One written task.
AI use in the open.
For a senior analyst recruitment exercise, seven shortlisted candidates completed a 60-minute briefing task. They worked from supporting documents and produced a written recommendation.
- The cohort
- Seven candidates
- The task
- 60-minute briefing
- The marking
- Human assessors
How the exercise worked
Candidates were allowed to use Meritia's built-in AI. They were told that assessors would see the conversation alongside their submitted work. Human assessors awarded the marks; AI did not mark the assessment.
Partway through the exercise, a simulated workplace message changed the deadline and added a constraint. Candidates had to decide what the new information meant for their recommendation.
What participants said
The hiring manager described what the conversation record added to their review:
“Two candidates gave similar final answers, and the record made the difference between them clear.”
The candidate feedback explained the experience from the other side:
“It was clear to me that my judgement was being assessed, not the AI's.”
The hiring manager reported using the conversations to review what candidates asked, checked and chose to ignore. They also described looking at how candidates changed their plans after the message arrived.
This account illustrates what Meritia makes available for human review: the candidate's written work, their use of the built-in AI and their response to changing information.
Based on participant feedback from one recruitment exercise. Individual experiences do not establish outcomes for every assessment.