[rnovak]

Okay, give us a generalized example? everyone who (appears) to care about being empathetic while at the same testing for these skills is continually asking for better options.

If you're hiring a point guard, isn't testing their reflexes by tossing them a basketball a reasonable approach?

[falsedan]

Ask a simple, standard question that the candidate could reasonably answer in 10 or so minutes, confirm it works with them, and then change the parameters to invalidate their solution?

This is the closest I can get to actual project work in 45 minutes.

[rnovak]

The second the interviewer changed the parameters people would start complaining that they were "Setup to fail." These threads commonly illuminate that interviewers simply cannot win, regardless of how genuine they are.

[falsedan]

That's why I recommend confirming that the candidate's first solution was right. Use lots of positive feedback: ok, looks good, that's right, that's how I would do it; I see where you're going with this; etc. Then introduce the change, with a justification e.g. the team providing the input data changed their format/guarantees/technology, and we have to blah blah blah.