Worked example · Financial analysis · SOC 13-2051
One session. Six findings.
This is the whole artifact — what the employer receives, and the identical copy the candidate keeps. Names and figures are illustrative; the structure is exact.
The report
Findings, with the moment attached
| Dimension | Finding | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| D1 Problem framing | Demonstrated. Stated what the memo had to settle and what would make it wrong before asking the assistant for anything. | 02:10 transcript turn 1 asks what the credit decision turns on. 02:40 artifact — two rejection criteria written down. |
| D2 Evidence sourcing | Not demonstrated. The 6.4% funding-cost figure moved from the AI panel into the memo with nothing asked for behind it. | 21:30 transcript turn 14 asserts the figure. 21:47 artifact diff inserts it. No source requested, and nothing opened between the two. |
| D3 Delegation boundary | Demonstrated. Recomputed the coverage ratio by hand and named the part of the work that would not be handed over. | 33:12 workspace — the ratio rebuilt in the sheet. Debrief Q3: "the covenant test is mine; the summarising is not." |
| D4 Working structure | Partly demonstrated. A criteria list came before the memo, but the memo departs from it in one place without saying so. | 05:15 artifact — a four-point outline. 44:02 the liquidity point is dropped, with no note of the change. |
| D5 Output rejection | Demonstrated. Rejected the covenant framing the assistant offered and cut a section that was carrying no weight. | 33:40 transcript turn 19: "that test is on the senior facility, not this one". 34:05 artifact — the section removed. |
| D6 Verification | Not demonstrated. Nothing the assistant asserted was tested outside the conversation; the comparable multiple was inherited as described. | 38:55 transcript turn 22 supplies the multiple. Artifact adopts it. No computation run and no page opened anywhere in the capture. |
Three demonstrated, one partly, two not — and you can open every one of the six. There is no composite, and no recommendation to hire. That judgment stays with the human reading this.
How to read it
What the report is, and is not
It is an input
Six evidenced observations about behavior during one session. It is not a hiring recommendation and does not produce one.
It is human-confirmed
A person reviewed every finding on this page before it was released. That is what keeps the tool an input rather than a decision.
It is shared
The candidate has this exact page, with these exact excerpts, free — whatever the employer decides next.
The construct
What each dimension was looking for
- D1 · Problem framing Did the first move go after understanding, or straight for output?
- D2 · Evidence sourcing Did they demand evidence for the claim that mattered?
- D3 · Delegation boundary What did they keep, and what did they hand over?
- D4 · Working structure Did anything exist between the brief and the answer?
- D5 · Output rejection Was anything the assistant produced refused, and on what grounds?
- D6 · Verification Was anything tested against the world, and did the result change something?
Your turn
Run this on a role you are hiring for
Ten attempts a month, full reports to every candidate, no card.