Handle a request from the first conversation through to an accessible assessment and a recorded outcome.
A candidate asks for another way to complete a recorded interview. Before sending a different link, find out which part of the assessment is creating the problem and what would help them take part. You also need to know what the stage is meant to assess.
Those two answers belong in the same conversation. Extra time may address a time limit; it won't necessarily address an inaccessible interface. Replacing video with a written task also needs thought if the role requires a particular form of communication. Agree an approach with the candidate and the people responsible for the assessment, then check that it actually happens.
The record below follows that work from request to resolution. It is designed for the recruitment consultant arranging the stage, with a clear handover to the employer or specialist adviser where a decision needs their authority.
Understand the barrier before choosing an alternative
Ask the candidate which part of the process they are having difficulty with and what support they would find useful. Give them a contact who can discuss the request. Keep the conversation on participation and the work being assessed, without collecting a detailed medical history by default.
The Australian Human Rights Commission's recruitment guidance recommends asking candidates whether they need adjustments, limiting assessments to essential job requirements and offering an alternative format when online platforms are inaccessible. Examples include extra time, an alternative approach to online tasks and accessibility support.
JobAccess's guidance for interviews also encourages candidates to tell the employer what support they need. Don't make the candidate start that conversation again with every person arranging the assessment. Agree what the next organiser needs to know and pass on those practical instructions appropriately.
If the request raises a question about medical evidence or sensitive information, involve the responsible adviser before asking for more. The AHRC's recruitment guide advises interviewers to focus on job requirements and adjustments rather than irrelevant questions about the condition or diagnosis.
Decide what the alternative needs to demonstrate
Write down the capability the stage is intended to assess. Then ask whether the proposed alternative gives the candidate a suitable way to demonstrate it. Review the requirement itself if nobody can explain its connection to the job. Preserving an irrelevant assessment criterion is not the aim.
JobAccess's alternative-assessment resource encourages opportunities to request adjustments during application and interview stages, with a contact route to discuss support. Its interview and selection guidance asks employers to consider alternative ways of assessing suitability, including modified interviews or testing.
Use that discussion to compare the available methods. What would each let the candidate show? What instructions or equipment would they need? Who can assess the response? An agreed alternative needs an organiser and an assessor, as well as the candidate's input.
Consider this hypothetical example. A candidate cannot use the online platform chosen for an assessment. The stage is intended to assess how they investigate and explain a customer billing discrepancy. The employer considers a work-sample task using an accessible document, followed by a conversation with an assessor. They check with the candidate that the proposed format is usable and decide how the response will be assessed against the relevant work requirements.
That example doesn't establish that a document and conversation are equivalent to every online assessment. It shows the questions to resolve. Record why the alternative suits this task and who approved it; don't assume that giving it a different format settles the assessment design.
A request-to-resolution record
Keep enough detail for the person running the assessment to act. Restrict sensitive information to those who need it, and use your organisation's agreed access and retention arrangements. The practical instruction for an interviewer need not reproduce every detail discussed with the candidate.
| Stage | Record | Check before moving on |
|---|---|---|
| Request received | Candidate reference, affected stage, contact preference and date | Who will respond, and when will the candidate hear back? |
| Barrier understood | Practical difficulty and the candidate's suggested support | Has the candidate had a chance to explain what would help? |
| Assessment reviewed | Relevant job requirement and the evidence needed to assess it | Does the criterion itself need review? |
| Options discussed | Available formats, support and any unresolved questions | Can the proposed method assess the requirement, and can the candidate use it? |
| Arrangement agreed | Chosen approach, responsible organiser, assessor and agreed instructions | Does anyone need to authorise the arrangement or provide specialist advice? |
| Delivery checked | Access, equipment, instructions and appointment details | Has the candidate received what they need to participate? |
| Outcome followed up | Whether the arrangement was delivered; any remaining access problem or concern | Who will address an unresolved issue, and what will the candidate be told? |
Use an agreed response date rather than inventing a statutory deadline. If you need information from the employer, tell the candidate what happens next and keep someone responsible for the reply.
An organiser should check the arrangement before the assessment begins. If a different assessor takes over, make sure they receive the current instructions. If the platform still blocks access, address that problem before treating an incomplete response as evidence about the person's capability.
Keep the legal question with the right people
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 covers discrimination in recruitment arrangements and separately addresses employment agencies. Its provisions include adjustment-related discrimination, as well as qualifications concerning inherent requirements and unjustifiable hardship. Software does not remove the need to examine the actual process.
For a disputed request, have an appropriate adviser assess the circumstances. A consultant should not promise that a preferred format must always be provided, or refuse it because the team would rather use its usual platform. JobAccess explains that a small cost or inconvenience is not unjustifiable hardship.
If an arrangement is refused or remains unresolved, record the actual reasons and route it to the responsible decision-maker. Give the candidate a clear response and a contact for further discussion. Completing the table does not determine whether the decision meets legal obligations.
Keep agreed instructions accurate when records change
After an alternative is agreed, check the records and messages used by the people organising it. An old instruction about the original format should not quietly remain the instruction someone follows. Decide which material needs updating and who will make the change.
If your team wants AI assistance preparing a supported recruitment-record update, FluxHire's AI assistant prepares proposed changes to existing records and holds them for approval. During early access, record edits are made by people holding the records editor permission. The authorised reviewer can inspect the proposed change before approving it.
Bring a description of the record update you need and ask which records and fields are supported for your team. Include the information the reviewer would need to check without sharing sensitive candidate material you haven't been authorised to provide. The adjustment decision and the design of the alternative assessment remain with the responsible people; do not assume FluxHire provides AI interviews or adjustment case management.
Request early access to discuss AI-prepared record changes and their review. Start with the agreed instruction you need to keep accurate, and the record your team actually uses.