Intervues
◆ Structured · integrity-enforced · audit-readyFor in-house teams, agencies & placement cells

From 2 August, your AI interviewer
is a high-risk system. Ours was built like one.

Every score cited · CSV in, ATS out.

AI used in recruitment is named explicitly as high-riskunder the EU AI Act's Annex III — impact assessments, human oversight, candidate notice, and logging, all binding from 2 August 2026. We built for that bar from day one: every score cited to a timestamp and a quote, integrity flags kept private with disclosed false-positive rates, and consent before the microphone ever opens.

See a sample fit report

·A real reply from the founder, not a sales team   ·Candidate consent & data handling built in   · Bias-resistant by design

SCREEN · SDE-2 BACKEND · ROLE #4471  ·  200 candidates · structured · identical12 interviewer-hours saved
Candidate · 0188Postgres · queues · API design
8.4
shortlist
Candidate · 0142Strong system design, thin on testing
7.1
shortlist
Candidate · 0203Good fundamentals, coverage gaps
5.6
review
Candidate · 0117Role-ask mismatch on scale
4.2
hold
Why 0188 scored 8.4 — every claim cited
“Partitioned by tenant_id; moved FK integrity to the app layer with a reconciliation job.”↳ 00:31:18 · verified against live editor run
Coverage17 / 18 topics
Integrityclean · presence verified
Fit to role-asks9 / 10
Pushed toGreenhouse ✓
~45 min saved per candidate≥85% agreement with your interviewers0 scheduling no-shows1 identical bar for everyone
What just became binding

The compliance deadline that makes this a buy-or-build decision.

Aug 2

EU AI Act, Annex III

Recruitment AI is named explicitly as high-risk. From 2 August 2026: fundamental-rights impact assessments, human oversight, candidate notice, technical documentation, logging, and post-market monitoring — or penalties up to €35M or 7% of global turnover.

Annual

NYC Local Law 144

Independent bias audits, published publicly, at least once a year — and it applies extraterritorially to any employer evaluating a candidate who resides in NYC, wherever the role or the company sits.

Feb 2026

Colorado AI Act

One more state with its own hiring-AI disclosure and impact-assessment regime already in force — the pattern isn't slowing down, it's compounding.

Accent calibration is a compliance control, not a feature.

Generic AI screeners run a 30–50% word-error rate on Indian-accented English versus 2–8% on native speakers — a measurable, auditable disparate-impact vector, not a rounding error. Under an EU AI Act impact assessment or a Local Law 144 bias audit, that gap is exactly the kind of finding that ends a vendor relationship.

Named, versioned control. A documented 1.25× pause-tolerance multiplier, not an undisclosed heuristic.
Scores reflect what was said, not how it was accented — the exact axis regulators are asking about.
Auditable by design.The calibration parameters and score distributions an auditor needs already exist — we don't have to build them for the audit.
What screening costs you today

The first round is where good hiring quietly breaks.

~45min

Per candidate, per screen

Your senior engineers spend it on first-round phone screens that a structured interviewer could run identically — and they're inconsistent every time anyway.

38.5%

Remote-interview cheating

Across a 19,368-interview dataset. Copilots feed candidates answers your panel can't see. You need integrity that's verifiable, not vibes.

30–50%

Accent error in other tools

Generic AI screeners mis-transcribe Indian-accented English and quietly penalise it. That's not a fit signal — that's bias you can be audited for.

How it runs at scale

Roster to shortlist, without the hours.

01

Upload the roster

Drop a CSV of candidates and the JD — or your own question bank. We build the role blueprint: 15–20 weighted, time-budgeted topics.

02

Everyone sits the same room

Each candidate gets the identical structured voice interview, on their own time. No scheduling, no no-shows, one bar for all.

03

Scored against the role

Every score is cited to a timestamp, a quote, a code run, a diagram element. Integrity checks run quietly in the background.

04

Fit reports into your ATS

200 candidates in, 200 fit reports out — pushed straight to Greenhouse, Lever, or any ATS. You open a ranked shortlist.

What teams get that candidates don't

Built for evaluation, not just practice.

consistency

One identical interview, every candidate

Structured assessment mode runs the same blueprint, the same topics, the same bar for everyone — so you're comparing candidates, not interviewer moods.

Defensible · the same room for all
integrity

Eyes on the room

Optional presence and eye-tracking checks for high-stakes screens. Integrity signals are kept private, surfaced as a flag for your team — never as a public verdict on the candidate.

Consent-based · false-positive rates disclosed
scoring

Every score cites its evidence

No “the AI thinks they're a 7.” Each rating links to the exact timestamp, quote, code run, or diagram it came from — agreeing with your own interviewers ≥85% of the time.

Auditable · no black box
fairness

Indian-English calibrated

The accent handling that protects candidates is also what protects you: scores reflect what was said, not how it was accented — reducing a bias other tools bake in.

Bias-resistant · audit-ready
your pipeline

CSV in, ATS out — and a talent pool that compounds

Drop 200 candidates, get 200 fit reports mapped to your role-asks, pushed into your ATS. Over time, every candidate who's demonstrated a role becomes part of a verified pool you can hire from directly — screening you only have to do once.

Per-candidate reportfit, not transcript
ATS pushGreenhouse · Lever · any
Custom question banksupload your own
Verified talent poolhire pre-screened
The honest math

What structured screening gives back.

Your numbers, not ours. We only assume the ~45 min/screen your own seniors spend today.

150
interviewer-hours returned every month

$4.5K
in senior time, back on real work each month

Same bar for every candidate, evidence behind every score, and your engineers out of the phone-screen treadmill.

Who runs Intervues this way

Three teams, one structured room.

in-house

Recruiting teams

Run a consistent first round at volume, free your engineers from phone screens, and hand hiring managers a ranked, evidence-cited shortlist.

agencies

Staffing & IT agencies

Screen a large bench fast and submit candidates with a defensible fit report attached — proof of quality your clients can trust, not just a CV.

campus

Bootcamps & placement cells

Give every student a real, structured mock under one bar, show placement partners verified readiness, and route the strongest into the talent pool.

Integrity you can stand behind in an audit.

Proctoring done badly punishes nervous, neurodivergent, or differently-accented candidates. We treat integrity as a private signal for your team, with the limits stated up front — not a verdict stamped on a person.

Consent-first.Candidates are told what's monitored before they begin. No covert capture.
False-positive rates disclosed. We tell you how often a flag is wrong, so you weigh it like evidence — not proof.
Signals stay private.Integrity flags go to your team for review, never onto the candidate's record as a public judgement.
Accent ≠ guilt. Calibration prevents Indian-English from being read as evasion — the bias other tools quietly encode.
Compliance-ready. Data handling and biometric-consent requirements built in for the regions you hire in.
Team pricing

A prepaid credit pool, sized to your hiring.

Same honest mechanic — one credit, one full structured interview and fit report — bought as a monthly pool your team draws from. No per-seat tax, no shelfware.

Team pool
From $4 / screen
Prepaid monthly pool · volume-rated
  • Structured interview + fit report per candidate
  • ATS push (Greenhouse, Lever, any)
  • Custom question banks & role blueprints
  • Shared dashboard & ranked shortlists
Agencies & campuses
Volume & bench
Let's talk
Built around your bench size & cadence
  • Everything in Team pool
  • High-volume bench screening rates
  • Submission-ready fit reports for clients
  • Verified talent-pool access
  • Integrity & compliance configuration
Single seat
Free · 1 screen
Run one real screen before you commit
  • One structured interview, on us
  • A full, real fit report to judge quality
  • See the evidence-cited scoring yourself

Illustrative pricing · set your own. Pilots are scoped to one role so you can judge the fit reports on real candidates.

For hiring teams

What you'll want to know before a pilot.

How do you stop candidates from cheating? +
Two layers. The interview itself is built to be hard to fool — full-session memory, contradiction detection, and follow-ups that probe whether an answer is really theirs. On top of that, optional presence and eye-tracking checks run quietly for high-stakes screens. Flags go to your team as private signals with disclosed false-positive rates — evidence to weigh, never an automatic rejection.
Will the candidate experience reflect badly on us? +
It's the opposite of a cold form. Candidates get a patient interviewer that waits, hears their accent properly, and doesn't cut them off — and they can practise in preparation mode beforehand. A structured, respectful screen is a better first impression of your company than an inconsistent phone screen.
How does it fit our ATS and workflow? +
CSV in, ATS out. Upload a candidate roster and JD, and per-candidate fit reports push straight into Greenhouse, Lever, or any ATS — mapped to your role-asks, with a fit score and the evidence behind it. Your team opens a ranked shortlist instead of a stack of transcripts.
Can we trust the scores? +
Every score is cited to a timestamp, a quote, a code run, or a diagram element — no black box. In calibration it agrees with your own interviewers at least 85% of the time, and because the bar is identical for every candidate, you're comparing people fairly rather than comparing interviewer moods.
What about data, consent and compliance? +
Candidates are told what's monitored before they start — no covert capture. Recordings and integrity signals are handled per the biometric-consent and data rules of the regions you hire in, integrity flags stay private to your team, and candidates retain rights over their own session data.
Are you an EU AI Act high-risk provider or deployer, and what do you supply? +
Recruitment AI is named explicitly under Annex III of the EU AI Act, with high-risk obligations binding from 2 August 2026. We supply the technical documentation, logging, and human-oversight hooks a deployer needs for their own fundamental-rights impact assessment — every score cited to a timestamp and a quote, every integrity flag disclosed with its false-positive rate, candidates told what's monitored before they start.
Can you produce documentation for a Local Law 144 bias audit? +
Yes. Because every score already carries its evidence and our Indian-English calibration is a named, versioned control rather than a black box, the underlying data an independent auditor needs — score distributions, calibration parameters, disclosed false-positive rates — already exists. We'll work directly with your auditor.
What's your data residency? +
Interview recordings, transcripts, and reports are stored in the region you hire in, handled per that region's biometric-consent and data rules. We don't sell candidate data, share it across customers, or train other models on it.

Run one role. Judge the fit reports.

A pilot is scoped to a single role on real candidates — so the decision is the work, not the pitch. CSV in, shortlist out.

See a sample fit report

· Scoped to one role   ·Consent & compliance built in   · A real reply from the founder