I completed a timed online assessment (45 minutes) that required camera/microphone access. Afterward, I was told my test result was good, but the client claimed I used AI. I did not use AI or any external solutions and completed the test myself. I asked what specifically triggered the suspicion (e.g., proctoring flags, focus/tab events, similarity checks) and offered immediate ways to resolve it fairly: retake the test under stricter live proctoring and/or do a short live screen-share technical follow-up. They declined and did not reconsider. This process felt unprofessional and unfair because a serious accusation was made without transparent evidence and without a standard remediation step. If a company relies on tools that can generate false positives, there should be a clear, consistent procedure to validate candidates rather than ending the process on suspicion alone. Advice to Aquila Management: If you suspect external assistance, provide clear, specific reasons and offer a standard next step (monitored retest or live practical exercise). It protects the company and avoids wrongly penalizing honest candidates. Closing note (my personal opinion): At the end, it felt like the “AI use” claim may have been used as a convenient reason to end the process rather than having a transparent conversation (for example, if priorities changed, less expensive candidate was found or the role was paused). I can’t know the internal reason — but the lack of evidence and refusal to verify skills made it come across that way.