Research-validated selection assessment · Defensible by design · Built for the AI era
Select for character and creativity.
With science you can defend.
Go beyond aptitude and personality. Our validated assessment predicts what resumes can't: moral judgment and creative capacity. It stays defensible even when candidates use AI.
Validated instruments · Adverse-impact monitored · Non-clinical framing
The problem
Hiring has a measurement problem. AI just made it worse.
AI broke the resume.
Candidates generate applications with LLMs at scale. Resumes and unstructured interviews no longer separate genuine capability from generated content.
Legacy integrity tests are fakeable.
Likert self-report questionnaires are coached, gamed, and carry documented adverse impact. The U.S. OTA flagged them in 1990, and they have barely improved since.
Aptitude isn't everything.
Cognitive aptitude and personality predict part of performance. They do not predict ethical judgment or creative contribution, the dimensions that derail or differentiate leaders.
Why these dimensions
The two capacities AI imitates best and possesses least.
Morality and creativity decide outcomes in roles of real consequence, and they are the qualities that resumes, personality tests, and generated content cannot reliably show.
High-stakes roles run on both.
Mission-critical work needs people who can think laterally when the playbook runs out, and who are aligned with the mission so the work actually gets done. One half finds the move nobody scripted. The other decides what to do when nobody is watching.
Proof without exposure.
Online, people show exactly as much of themselves as they choose. A unique human can hold these skills and still need to prove it, without trading away anonymity. Peira verifies the person is real and the profile is theirs, never binding a result to a name, wallet, or address.
As the world fills with generated content, the genuinely human qualities are the scarce ones. Peira exists to keep them measurable and trustworthy.
The battery
Six validated instruments. Two dimensions most tools ignore.
Every instrument is a structural replica of a peer-reviewed measure, not an invented scale. Together they cover the moral and creative dimensions that aptitude and personality batteries miss.
Creative Achievement
Pro-c / Big-C lifetime creative recognition across 13 domains.
Carson, Peterson & Higgins (2005), CAQ
Divergent Thinking
The capacity to generate many, varied, unusual ideas under time pressure.
Guilford (1967); scored via Beketayev & Runco (2016) SBA
Cognitive Style
Adapter–innovator problem-solving orientation. Fit, not better/worse.
Kirton (1976) Adaption–Innovation tradition
Everyday Creativity
Little-c creative practice in daily life: problem-solving, social, hobby.
Kaufman & Beghetto (2009) Four-C model
Moral Foundations
Which moral foundations you weigh when they conflict. Forced-choice, not Likert.
Atari et al. (2023), MFQ-2
Dilemma Reasoning
How you weigh outcomes vs. duties vs. restraint in hard moral trade-offs.
Gawronski et al. (2017), CNI / ODR model
Integrity
Defensible results, even when candidates use AI.
Per-candidate perturbation
Every candidate sees a structurally identical, surface-different version of each item. Item-bank leakage and coaching become useless. That protects both validity and audit-defensibility.
Forced-choice format
No Likert self-endorsement. Candidates judge between two parties with legitimate claims. There is no right answer to fake, and adverse impact runs lower than direct self-report.
Stylometric + behavioral detection
Free-text responses are screened for the statistical signatures of AI-generated prose. Behavioral signals (timing, paste events, focus) feed a post-hoc classifier. Raw signals never leave the candidate's browser.
One human, one result
Each result is bound to one unique human via World ID. One test. One person. For life. Every result traces to a verified person, not a bot farm or a duplicate identity.
Honest framing: these are layered defenses, and no single layer is a silver bullet. The output is an integrity band (High / Medium / Low), and a human reviewer stays in the loop on every flag. Every selection decision stays human-led.
Validity
Grounded in peer-reviewed science. Aligned with professional standards.
Every instrument is grounded in decades of published psychometrics, so validity is inherited from the source measure rather than claimed. Scoring is deterministic: the same responses always produce the same score. That makes every result reproducible, explainable, and defensible.
Gawronski et al. (2017)
CNI model: moral-dilemma reasoning
Atari et al. (2023)
MFQ-2: moral foundations
Beketayev & Runco (2016)
SBA: divergent-thinking scoring
Carson, Peterson & Higgins (2005)
CAQ: creative achievement
Compliance
Candidate-owned data. Built for global hiring.
Results are keyed to a pseudonymous uniqueness nullifier. Never a wallet. Never a name. Candidates consent explicitly, per instrument and per data category (GDPR Art. 9(2)(a)), and grant each organization access on their terms. Data minimization is enforced at the schema, and raw behavioral signals never leave the browser. Because the platform is non-clinical, response data is positioned as selection-relevant rather than special-category health data, which reduces regulatory exposure for you and your candidates.
Roadmap
A stable foundation. A credible path forward.
Operated platform
A single canonical service: the validated instruments, the scoring engine, and the integrity classifier, administered end-to-end and integrated into your hiring workflow.
Open, verifiable protocol
Canonical instruments become publicly verifiable. Any qualified operator can deliver. Scoring stays deterministic and reproducible, and candidates gain zero-knowledge selective disclosure. Governed upgrades. No silent changes.