How We Grade Your Responses
Complete transparency about our AI-powered evaluation system.
Our Commitment to Transparency
Hi, your developer Sean here. I believe in complete openness about how our AI evaluates your responses. Below you'll find the exact scoring system, what we reward and penalize, and the complete source documents our AI references. Nothing is hidden—this is exactly how you're being evaluated.
The Quartile System (Q1-Q4)
Every response receives an overall quartile score from 1-4, measuring how well you demonstrate professional behaviors and situational judgment under time pressure.
Demonstrates competency with nuance and depth. Names tradeoffs explicitly (compassion vs accountability, privacy vs safety). Uses conditional thinking ('If X, then Y; if not, Z'). Contains all structural elements: Frame goal → Clarify/verify → Empathy/respect → Proportional action → Follow-up/prevention.
Demonstrates competency well with reasonable detail. Addresses core conflict and multiple stakeholders. Includes concrete next steps (not just 'I would talk to them'). Shows information-seeking behavior before judgment. May lack one structural element or some depth.
Partially demonstrates competencies with missing key elements. Has good instincts but incomplete execution. Vague on specifics, escalation logic, or follow-up. May jump to action without clarification. Acknowledges tension but doesn't fully address it.
Competency not demonstrated, shallow, or concerning response. Less than 3 substantive sentences. One-liner or flippant responses. Empty platitudes with no concrete behavior. Jumps to conclusions, moralizes, or vilifies. Escalates immediately OR avoids when responsibility exists.
10 Competencies We Score
Each competency is scored 1-4 based on how well your response demonstrates it.
Collaboration
Listening to teammates, addressing concerns without blame, creating clear plans with deliverables
Communication
Organizing thoughts clearly, answering questions directly, stating your role and main issue
Empathy
Recognizing others' feelings, responding with kindness and practical support
Equity
Considering systemic barriers, supporting vulnerable individuals, avoiding unintentional disadvantage
Ethics
Identifying what's at stake, choosing proportionate action, respecting confidentiality
Motivation
Persisting through challenges, showing concrete habits and self-improvement
Problem Solving
Multi-step process: identify → clarify → gather evidence → act → reassess
Professionalism
Respecting boundaries, following procedures, escalating through proper channels
Resilience
Maintaining composure during setbacks, using support systems, preventing repeat failures
Self Awareness
Recognizing limits, asking for help, accepting feedback without defensiveness
What Gets Rewarded
- ✓Balanced reasoning — No moralizing, no leaping to conclusions
- ✓Information-seeking — "I'd ask clarifying questions...", "I'd check policies/facts..."
- ✓Stakeholder awareness — Who's affected? (patient, team, institution, yourself)
- ✓Safety-first escalation — If safety/legal risk: escalate. If not: resolve at lowest level first
- ✓Empathy with boundaries — Support people without enabling harm
- ✓Proportional action — Not overreacting, not ignoring
- ✓Follow-up and prevention — Check-ins, documentation, process improvements
What Hurts Your Score
- ✗Reporting immediately without fact-finding (when not a safety issue)
- ✗"I'd stay out of it" when you have responsibility
- ✗Buzzwords without concrete behavior ("I'd be nonjudgmental" with no actions)
- ✗Proposing unrealistic "hero" actions outside your role
- ✗Assuming intent without verification (mind-reading)
- ✗Breaking confidentiality casually
- ✗Missing follow-up or prevention steps
The Ideal Answer Structure
High-scoring responses typically include these elements:
- 1Acknowledge the conflict — Identify what's really going on, not just surface-level assumptions
- 2Check your biases — Don't pre-judge; understand context before acting
- 3Identify stakeholders — Who is affected and how?
- 4Gather information — Ask open-ended questions, practice active listening
- 5State your action and why — Be specific about what you would do
- 6Mention follow-up — How will you prevent this from happening again?
Our Commitment to Fairness
We follow strict calibration principles to ensure fair evaluation:
Score the process, not the outcome — We evaluate your reasoning, not whether we agree with your final choice.
Substance over style — Fancy wording without reasoning doesn't help; simple clarity does.
No grammar penalties — Typos don't hurt you; reasoning and professionalism matter.
Concision is fine — Some people type slower; short answers aren't penalized if they cover key elements.
Cultural awareness — Different communication styles don't indicate incompetence.
Source Documents
These are the exact documents our AI references when evaluating your responses. Every piece of feedback cites these sources—nothing is arbitrary.
Casper Answer Structure
- Acknowledge the conflict or problem – don't be misled by assumptions in scenario, try to understand what the scenario is really dealing with
- Check your biases – Do you have any pre-conceptions or biases that might cause you to pre-judge a situation (e.g., if you are a hard worker and see a co-worker slacking off and not doing their job, don't just assume they are lazy and need to be disciplined. Understand what is going on in their life and try to understand why their behaviour is what you have witnessed)
- Explain who is affected and why – e.g. does their behaviour affect a project you are working on with other people, does it affect the integrity of the company you both work for
- Consider whether you need more information – be non-judgemental and non-confrontational by asking open ended questions and practice active listening. Information gathering is important to help you get a better picture of what is really going on
- Consider if you need to speak with your supervisor/co-workers – to obtain input and more information to understand their concerns – to get the bigger picture
- Refer to policies – hospital/school/company policies that might have a bearing on issues
- Say what you would do, and why – be specific in saying what you would do – if they are doing something that breaches school procedures (cheating, or not contributing to group project), or breaches company policies (stealing, or failing to do the work), then you might offer to help them in reporting their behaviour to the appropriate person (professor, company supervisor), or helping them develop a study plan for delivering on a school project, but if they refuse to take remedial steps even with your assistance, then you will need to escalate this to a higher level (professor, supervisor). The person involved should be informed that this may be a necessary step if they refuse to take appropriate corrective steps themselves, or if they refuse to acknowledge the problem
- Mention follow-up – can you assist the person going forward with their work, or help them with studying, or help them approach person to explain what they did and why