
“The answer isn’t more AI — it’s better signal.”
In this episode I’m joined by Robert Newry, Founder & CEO of the assessment company Arctic Shores and long time champion of doing assessment right! Robert and I (and my AI co-host Mayda Tokens!) dig into one of the most urgent problems in hiring right now: the complete breakdown of traditional hiring signals.We ponder the question- “How do we find the truth in an age where AI has flooded the top of the funnel, made credentials and resumes unreliable, and put enormous pressure on organizations to find new ways to identify talent?”And we come up with some pretty good answers!1. The Top of the Funnel Is in ChaosThe numbers are staggering. Accenture’s global resourcing lead told Robert they’re on pace for 12 million applications this year for roughly 100,000 hires — up from 4 million just three years ago. Same size team. Two and a half times the volume. The culprit isn’t a surge in qualified candidates; it’s AI-powered application tools that let candidates apply to jobs while they sleep. The moral contract between candidates and employers has been broken: candidates assume companies are using AI to screen, so they’re using AI to apply.“It’s chaos out there. Candidates are using AI to fight AI — and we’re in a no-win scenario.”2. Traditional Assessment Is Increasingly GameableArctic Shores’ research from 18 months ago showed what most people didn’t want to admit: AI can ace virtually any traditional assessment format — personality tests, cognitive reasoning, multiple choice — with ease. And it’s not just about having a second screen open. Candidates can now point a phone at their screen, have the AI read the item, and get the answer instantly. Proctoring doesn’t solve this. The old protection mechanisms are obsolete.3. The Answer Is Better Signal, Not More AIThe solution isn’t to ban AI from the process — it’s to design assessments that AI can’t easily game because they’re rooted in authentic behavior. Robert’s framework: if AI is being used to evaluate signals, those signals have to be grounded in high-fidelity behavioral data — not scraped from job descriptions, not inferred from keyword matching, not built on garbage in. Job descriptions themselves are often the first failure point, and no amount of downstream AI sophistication fixes a weak foundation.4. Stop Counting Leaves — Look at the RootsRobert’s tree analogy is one of the sharpest frameworks in this episode. For decades, hiring has been obsessed with leaves — the skills on a resume, the credentials on a LinkedIn profile. But with the average shelf life of a skill now estimated at two and a half years, leaves are increasingly unreliable. What matters is the root system: the durable human capabilities that allow someone to grow new skills, adapt to changing roles, and thrive in uncertainty.5. Skills-Based Hiring Needs a Clearer Definition of “Skill”Both Robert and I agree: the skills-based hiring movement is directionally right, but conceptually messy. Calling “innovation” or “persistence” a skill conflates what can be learned with what is innate. Durable traits — personality, cognitive style, learning orientation — don’t expire the way technical skills do. Measurement strategy has to account for these differences, or skills-based hiring just becomes the next echo chamber.Final TakeawayThe hiring signal crisis is real — and it’s accelerating. AI has made it trivially easy to fake credentials, game traditional assessments, and flood the funnel with noise. The organizations that receive the best signal won’t be the ones that deploy the most AI. They’ll be the ones that invest in the right signal: behavior-based, validated, and rooted in the durable human traits that no machine can fake.*Claude.ai assisted with the creation of these show notes This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charleshandler.substack.com













