Why Capifiq

Every other tool guesses. Capifiq verifies.

Q: Does Capifiq produce a probability or suspicion score?

No. Capifiq produces deterministic, timestamped evidence — a finding was present in the session or it was not. There is no probability, risk band, or ranking to interpret.

Behavioral tools infer cheating from how a candidate looks. Denylist scanners match running software against a catalog of known names. Both are a step behind by design. Capifiq verifies the interview environment directly and preserves timestamped, sealed evidence — coverage that does not depend on the tool already being known.

Book a demo Request a pilot

Why current detection falls short

Two common approaches.
One shared blind spot.

Most interview-integrity products either infer cheating from behavior or compare running software against a maintained list of known tools. One produces suspicion. The other only recognizes what it already knows.

Capifiq verification layer

Verify the interview environment—not just behavior or a static denylist.

Capifiq is designed to surface unauthorized assistance even when the exact tool is new, renamed, privately built, or adapted from an open-source project.

New AI assistantRenamed executableCustom GitHub forkPrivate build

Behavioral inference

Watches the candidate and guesses.

These tools look for patterns that may correlate with cheating, but the signal remains indirect.

Eye movement or looking away
Unusual pauses or response timing
Head, posture, or attention changes
Outputs probability or suspicion

!Normal interview behavior can look suspicious, while a careful cheater may look completely normal.

Known-tool process scanning

Matches software against a list.

These scanners inspect known names, signatures, hashes, or window indicators associated with cataloged cheating tools.

Requires an actively maintained catalog
Works best on known names and builds
New tools remain invisible until added
Renamed or custom variants may evade matching

!A new GitHub project or private build can exist before the scanner's list is updated.

Behavioral tools infer. Process scanners recognize known indicators. Capifiq verifies and preserves evidence.

Why it holds up

Three reasons this is a category, not a feature.

Tool-agnostic by design

Coverage isn't a list of product names. New, renamed, private, or open-source-forked tools are in scope — the kind a signature-based scanner hasn't catalogued yet.

Deterministic evidence

Every finding is timestamped, hashed at capture, and sealed into the report — independently verifiable. Not a probability, not a risk band, not a ranking.

Patent-pending method

The detection approach is defensible, not copyable. A provisional patent application is on file. The result holds up under scrutiny and in a dispute.

Capifiq vs. the alternatives

Behavior can only suggest.
Tool lists only recognize what they already know.

Capifiq stands apart because it verifies the interview environment and produces direct, timestamped evidence—without depending on gaze analysis or a maintained catalog of known cheating tools.

Behavioral tools · Inference

Observe the candidate

Analyze gaze, posture, response timing, and other behavioral cues.

ProducesSuspicion scoreIndirect signal

×Can flag normal behavior and cannot prove which tool was used.

Process scanners · Known lists

Match cataloged software

Look for names, signatures, hashes, window titles, and known indicators.

ProducesKnown-tool matchCatalog dependent

×New, renamed, private, or custom GitHub builds may not match the maintained list.

Capifiq · Direct verification

Verify the environment

Surface integrity-relevant activity and record evidence as it happens.

ProducesReviewable evidenceTimestamped and sealed

✓Not limited to behavioral guesses or a static catalog of known tool names.

The key difference is coverage.Behavioral tools infer intent. Process scanners recognize cataloged software. Capifiq verifies what is happening and preserves evidence for review.

Designed for unknown tools too

What matters	CapifiqEnvironment verification	Behavioral toolsCandidate inference	Process scannersKnown-tool matching
Core detection method	Direct environment signalsVerifies integrity-relevant activity during the session.	Behavioral inferenceUses gaze, movement, timing, or response patterns.	Catalog matchingChecks names, signatures, hashes, or known indicators.
New or previously unknown AI tool	Designed to detect the activityCoverage is not dependent on the product already being named in a list.	Cannot identify the toolMay only generate a suspicion score from behavior.	May miss itThe scanner must first know what indicator to search for.
Renamed executable or changed window title	Not dependent on the displayed nameVerification is not reduced to a filename lookup.	No direct visibilityBehavior analysis does not validate the software identity.	Name-based checks can failRenaming or modifying known indicators can evade simplistic lists.
Custom or open-source GitHub build	Environment-level coverageDoes not require the private or forked build to be cataloged first.	Still only suspicionCannot prove that a custom assistant was present.	Often outside the known listA changed build, hash, or process identity may not match.
Evidence produced	Timestamped and sealed evidenceFindings are preserved for interviewer review and the final integrity report.	Suspicion scoreRequires interpretation and may be difficult to act on confidently.	Process or indicator matchShows a listed match, but not necessarily the complete interview context.
Live interviewer visibility	Live integrity dashboardThe interviewer can review findings and act while the interview is still in progress.	Varies by productOften centered on automated scoring rather than direct evidence.	Scanner alert onlyTypically limited to the indicator the scanner recognizes.
Final interview record	Sealed integrity reportCombines the session timeline, findings, and retained evidence.	Behavior reportDocuments observations and probability, not direct proof.	Known-match logLimited by the scanner's catalog and the indicators it monitors.

Process scanner tools differ by vendor. The comparison describes the common limitation of approaches that depend primarily on maintained lists of known process names, signatures, hashes, or window indicators.

A category move

This isn't proctoring. It's a category beyond it.

Proctoring watches the room, the webcam, and the candidate's behavior — and the newest tools are built to slip past all three. Capifiq doesn't watch the room and it doesn't lock anything down. It verifies the interview environment, and proves what it finds. Lockdown browsers and behavior scores are looking in the wrong place.

Questions

Common questions.

How is Capifiq different from proctoring or lockdown browsers?

Proctoring watches the room, the webcam, and the candidate's behavior; lockdown browsers restrict what the candidate can do. Capifiq is neither. It verifies the interview environment and preserves evidence, and it never blocks, terminates, or restricts the candidate's machine — it is an integrity check, not a lockdown.

Can Capifiq detect a tool it has never seen before?

Yes. Because it verifies the environment rather than matching a catalog of known product names, its coverage does not depend on the specific tool already being known. Renamed, privately built, and brand-new tools are in scope — the kind a signature-based scanner hasn't catalogued yet.

Does Capifiq produce a probability or suspicion score?

No. Capifiq produces deterministic, timestamped evidence: a finding was present in the session, or it was not. There is no probability, risk band, or ranking to interpret — you are handed a record, not a number.

Do behavioral tools and Capifiq compete, or work together?

They answer different questions. Behavioral analysis suggests something may be off; Capifiq verifies what actually happened and preserves the evidence. If you already run a behavioral tool, Capifiq gives you the proof it cannot.

Is the comparison on this page a knock on other vendors?

No. Behavioral products and process scanners are thoughtfully engineered for what they do. The point is a genuine category difference: inference and catalog-matching versus direct environment verification with sealed evidence.

Get started

See what verification catches that guessing misses.

Run Capifiq alongside the Zoom, Teams, or Meet calls you already do, and judge the evidence for yourself.