Proof AI

Your way, the only way.

Turn your company’s definition of a great hire into an objective way to evaluate candidates.

One free evaluation per account. Need more? See pricing.

CommunicationProblemDomainOverall
Maya ChenScored against your definition of great
Your definition of a great hireCompany-defined competenciesRole-specific evaluationStructured evidence of performanceWorks beside the ATS you already useYour definition of a great hireCompany-defined competenciesRole-specific evaluationStructured evidence of performanceWorks beside the ATS you already use

Every company has a different definition of great.

Two teams can hire for the same role and still value completely different qualities. Traditional hiring still leans on generic signals — resumes, interviews, standardized assessments, past experience. Those methods are useful. They just don’t always capture how your company defines excellent performance.

Independence

One company wants people who decide alone.

They hire for ownership — candidates who can move without waiting for a committee.

Communication

Another wants people who can write and align a room.

Clarity under pressure matters more than raw technical speed.

Analysis

A third cares most about how someone thinks with incomplete data.

The work is judgment on messy numbers, not a polished interview story.

Judgment

Others prize speed, creativity, or attention to detail.

Same title on the job board. Completely different definition of excellent.

How Proof turns your definition into evidence

Five steps. Your standards stay at the center. Click a stage, or let it play.

Define

Your team defines what great performance looks like.

Name the competencies, behaviors, and capabilities that matter for this hire — the bar is yours, not a generic bank of questions.

Auto-playing · 1 of 5

Don’t just ask candidates if they can do the work.

Give them the work.

Proof can place candidates into realistic situations relevant to the position so you can observe how they actually perform — not how they describe themselves. Work simulations are the mechanism. Your definition of a great hire is the point.

  • Not a generic test

    The evaluation is designed around the expectations of the role and how your company defines strong performance.

  • Observe the work

    See how candidates communicate, solve problems, prioritize, make decisions, and handle ambiguity — in situations that look like the job.

  • Your bar, on the page

    Materials, deliverables, and scoring map back to the competencies you named. This is evidence, not a personality quiz.

Proof AI · Role evaluation

Example role · Sales

Phase 1/3

Research

Prioritize accounts from the sector report

Inbox · Email

Re: Q3 Sector Report — prioritize accounts

From: jordan.lee@northline.io

Use the sector report on-screen. Rank five mid-market accounts and flag who to call first this week.

Internal memo

Q3 Sector Report · Healthcare SaaS

  • Win rate 32% in healthcare vs 21% overall
  • Best ACV in 50–200 seat accounts ($48k)
  • Top objection: budget freeze until October

Your deliverable

Ranked account list + first call

Typing…
Live preview · auto-playsFullscreen · on-screen materials

From candidate performance to evidence.

Proof turns the candidate’s work into structured competency insights based on the standards defined for that role — communication, problem solving, decision making, judgment, quality of work, and whatever else your company named.

Competency report — specimen

A. Okonkwo

Financial Analyst · Northline Capital

4 phases · self-paced (time limit)Submitted Mar 120 violations

Score

B+

Strong Interview Candidate

Competency profile

Scored against the competencies you defined

CommunicationProblem solvingDomainOverall
Candidate score
Overall84B+
Communication91A−
Problem solving78B
Domain knowledge86A−

Phase breakdown

Phase 1

Sector brief

88

Phase 2

Memo analysis

82

Phase 3

Recommendation

85

Phase 4

Stakeholder reply

79

Strengths

  • + Clear structure under time pressure
  • + Uses source materials, not gut feel
  • + Grounds recommendation in the memo numbers

Weaknesses

  • Soft on tradeoffs / prioritization
  • Close / next-step urgency uneven
  • Could push harder on risk assumptions

Hiring note

Uses the memo and table correctly, communicates clearly, and lands a usable recommendation. Interview — coach judgment under ambiguity before putting them on live deals.

Recommend · Strong Interview CandidateAnimating · mirrors dashboard report

Sample output — same structure as the live candidate report in your dashboard

Specimen only — illustrative example. Live reports score observed work against the competencies you defined for the role.

An extra layer of evidence — not a replacement for hiring

Resumes and interviews still matter. Proof sits alongside them so decisions are grounded in how candidates perform against the standards your company actually uses.

Traditional hiring

  • Resume and pedigree as the first filter
  • Interviews that reward presence over performance
  • Generic assessments with a universal “good candidate”
  • Subjective impressions that are hard to compare
  • Limited evidence of how someone actually does the work

With Proof

  • Company-defined competencies for this role
  • A role-specific evaluation, not a generic screen
  • Realistic work that looks like the job
  • Structured evidence of candidate performance
  • An additional layer beside resumes and interviews

Define great. Then find it.

Build an evaluation around what your company actually values and see how candidates perform against it.