Name the risk precisely
There are three distinct concerns: someone else sitting the interview, undisclosed assistance during it, and answers rehearsed from a leaked question set. Each has a different remedy, and conflating them produces heavy-handed surveillance that solves none of them well.
Verify identity once, clearly
A documented identity check at the start, disclosed in advance, handles impersonation. It is a single explicit step rather than continuous monitoring, and candidates accept it because the purpose is obvious.
Prefer consistency signals over surveillance
Rotating question variants, live follow-ups on a candidate's own answer, and unscripted probes reveal borrowed answers far more reliably than watching eye movement. Design the interview so assistance does not help, instead of policing the room.
Disclose everything, flag rather than fail
Tell candidates what is recorded, what is checked and how long it is kept. When something looks anomalous, raise it for human review with the footage attached — never auto-reject. Integrity signals are evidence for a person to weigh, not a verdict.
