Illustrative report

What you actually receive

A complete assessment report for a third-party debt recovery specialist. The criteria, weights, anchors and statutory bases are the real ones. The candidate, the transcript and the scores are invented so this page can be published — no real candidate's assessment appears here, and none ever will.

Everything below is illustrative. Marcus I. is not a real person. Redgate Recovery is not a real company. The evidence excerpts were written to demonstrate the format, not drawn from any assessment.

RoleThird-party debt recovery specialist

Assessment32 minutes, 3 tasks

Weighted score3.1 / 5

StatusAwaiting reviewer

Conduct finding — read before the score. On criterion three the candidate asked a further question about payment in the turn immediately after a spoken stop request, and the account's contact permissions were unchanged at session end. Under 12 CFR 1006.14(h) a request to stop contact on a medium binds on that medium immediately. A weighted score cannot average this away, and this report does not.

Every score, with the evidence that earned it

5/5

Makes the required initial disclosure on an oral call that opens badly (15 U.S.C. 1692e(11), failure to disclose in the initial communication, and if that communication is oral in that initial oral communication, that the collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose)weight 0.2

0:12 — “This is Marcus calling from Redgate Recovery. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. I know you weren't expecting this call.”

Made in the opening exchange, completed over the consumer talking across it, and confirmed heard before anything else was discussed.

2/5

Treats an oral dispute as a change of track rather than an objection to rebut (15 U.S.C. 1692g(b), cessation on a written dispute until verification is obtained and mailed, read together with 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10) on false representation of the character, amount or legal status of a debt)weight 0.2

5:41 — Consumer: “That's not my account, I've told people that before.” Candidate: “I do see it in your name here, so it will have come from the original creditor. Shall we look at what you can pay this month?”

The dispute is recorded in the note but the same balance is pursued in the same call, and the consumer is not told what disputing does or how to make one in writing.

1/5

Honours a spoken stop request in the medium in which it was made, in the turn it is made (12 CFR 1006.14(h), a debt collector must not communicate or attempt to communicate through a medium if the person has requested that the collector not use that medium)weight 0.2

9:03 — Consumer: “Don't call this number again.” Candidate: “I understand. Before I let you go, can I just check whether payday is the 25th?”

The very next turn asks a further question about payment. The account's per-medium permissions are unchanged at session end and a telephone action remains scheduled for the following Tuesday.

4/5

States only consequences that will actually follow (15 U.S.C. 1692e(5), the threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken)weight 0.15

7:20 — “I can't tell you what the client will decide. What I can tell you is what happens if nothing is agreed: the account stays open and the balance doesn't change.”

No consequence was stated that the employer could not deliver. One earlier phrase, “this could escalate”, was left undefined.

4/5

In the judgment items, identifies the operative rule rather than the familiar one (12 CFR 1006.14(h) against 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c); 1692c(a)(1), local time at the consumer's location; 1692c(b), third parties; 12 CFR 1006.14(b)(2)(i), the seven-in-seven presumption)weight 0.15

Item 4 answered: “Permitted — the prohibition is on the medium the consumer named, and this is a different one, so long as no stop applies to it.”

Five of six items identified the operative rule. Item 2 was answered correctly for the wrong reason.

3/5

The account note lets a colleague act without re-reading the callweight 0.1

Note reads: “Spoke to consumer. Disputes the debt. Not happy. Will call back Tuesday.”

A colleague can see there is a dispute but not what is disputed, what was said about it, or that the consumer asked not to be called.

Timings, reported and not scored

These are context for the reviewer. None of them is a positive signal, and none is weighted into the score.

Measure	Value	Why it is here
Time to disclosure	0:12	Reported for position, not speed. Earlier is not better; complete is.
Turn on which the stop request landed	9:03	Position within the call, not a duration.
Turns between the stop request and the next payment question	1	The measurement the design exists to take.

Integrity log

The session log records what happened. It does not produce a verdict, and no part of this report accuses anyone of anything on statistical grounds.

Call recorded and transcribed
Account state captured at start and end
Judgment answers timestamped
No automated cheating determination

The decision is not ours

Required. Two decisions must be made by a person and cannot be delegated to the score. The first is whether a given sentence threatened an action not intended to be taken, which is a content judgment about a specific sentence against a specific client brief, and a reviewer makes it in seconds from a surfaced excerpt. The second is what to do with a candidate who scored 1 on the stop-request criterion but well on everything else, which is a policy decision about risk appetite, not a measurement question. The reviewer is looking at three time-marked turns: the opening exchange, the turn after the dispute, and the turn after the stop request. The ranking entitles the buyer to conclude that this candidate did or did not do these four things in this conversation. It does not establish that the candidate holds any licence or registration, which several US states require and which no simulation can verify, and it is not a substitute for post-hire call monitoring.

ReviewerNot yet signed Written reasonRequired before this candidate can be advanced or declined

What this assessment does not measure

Nothing in this design reads accent, dialect, fluency, vocabulary, vocal register or manner of speech, and the anchors are written so that no criterion can be satisfied by sounding calm or authoritative. The riskiest criterion for that leakage is the disclosure one, because a fluent speaker can deliver a formula more smoothly, so the anchors were written around completeness, placement and repetition rather than delivery, and a 5 is reachable by a candidate who speaks slowly or hesitantly. The assessment does not measure collection rate, call duration, or any productivity metric, and a deployer who reintroduces those alongside it will restore exactly the incentive the design is testing resistance to. It deliberately does not measure resilience to abuse as a construct in its own right: the AI consumer is hostile because that is what makes the disclosure fork real, not because tolerating hostility is being scored, and the scenario contains no personal abuse of the candidate. The judgment task is text-heavy and time-boxed, which is the most likely source of a construct-irrelevant disadvantage for second-language readers and for candidates with dyslexia; extended time should be available on request without a diagnosis, and deployers should compare judgment-task scores against call-task scores by group, since a gap that appears only in the written half is the signature of a reading-speed effect rather than a competency difference. Prior third-party collections experience will advantage candidates on the judgment items in a way it does not on the call, which is worth watching if the buyer intends to hire people new to the industry.

This is the format for all 64 roles. The criteria and the statutory bases change with the role; the structure — score, excerpt, finding, reviewer sign-off — does not.

See the assessment library