Arctic Shores

Arctic Shores sells a task-based psychometric assessment platform ("Una") that scores candidates on behaviour captured during short interactive tasks - covering personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility - rather than self-report questionnaires or CV review.
AssessmentScreening

HireAIScore rates Arctic Shores 46 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed August 2, 2026. Arctic Shores ranks 44 of 82 vendors rated in Assessment AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 34 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Arctic Shores — 27 with a cited source, 7 recording that nothing was located.

Score breakdown

Arctic Shores, criterion by criterion

Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.

Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.

  1. Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Weight 20% · avg 50

    50

    +10.0

  2. Bias Audit Transparency

    Weight 18% · avg 41

    35

    +6.3

  3. FRIA Support

    Weight 15% · avg 31

    35

    +5.3

  4. Data Governance Disclosure

    Weight 15% · avg 53

    57

    +8.5

  5. Human Oversight Design

    Weight 12% · avg 55

    56

    +6.7

  6. Post-Market Monitoring

    Weight 12% · avg 38

    30

    +3.6

  7. Customer Documentation

    Weight 8% · avg 58

    64

    +5.1

Total weighted score

45.5(rounded to 46 for display)

Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 82 Assessment AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.

Strongest criterion

Customer Documentation

64raw / 100

Contributes 5.1 to the total. 64 against a 58 category average.

Weakest criterion

Post-Market Monitoring

30raw / 100

Contributes 3.6 to the total. 30 against a 38 category average.

Cited evidence

The evidence behind the score

Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.

Download diligence record

Evidence ledger

Items
34
Documentation
20
Public statement
6
Product feature
1
Absence
7
With a source URL
27 of 34
Source hostnames
1
Fewest items
3
FRIA Support

These figures measure how thoroughly Arctic Shores was reviewed, not how Arctic Shores performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.

Article 11 Technical Documentation

5 items50
  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    The science page references British Psychological Society standards and claims researchers 'conduct dozens of studies a year', but links no technical manual, validity study, reliability analysis or model documentation.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/science

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Arctic Shores publishes an explicit explainability statement - the task is 'never a black box', offers 'explainable and compliant automation' and 'transparent scoring makes decisions simple to explain'- and asserts the assessment is 'GDPR and EU AI Act compliant'.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/introducing-the-worlds-first-task-based-assessment-for-learning-agility

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    The product page describes step-level scoring ('score every step a candidate takes') and 'accessible, actionable reports' but gives no technical specification of how behavioural signals are combined into trait scores.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/una

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    The most technical public article describes indirect measurement of traits via reaction times and interpretation of neutral stimuli and refers vaguely to 'construct-specific clusters of data', without naming any algorithm, model or statistical method.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/science-of-psychometric-assessments

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No model card, system card, AI policy, explainability whitepaper, instructions-for-use or ISO 42001 certificate was found on the trust centre, legal centre, compliance page, science page or resources hub; the compliance page cites only ISO 27001, and the Information Security Policy PDF it links to returns HTTP 404.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

Bias Audit Transparency

4 items35
  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Arctic Shores claims its scientists keep the assessment fair, meaning 'no adverse impact, regardless of ethnicity or gender', but publishes no selection-rate data, impact ratios, sample sizes or dates to support the claim.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/science

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    The company cites research showing 'a significant reduction in the performance gap between women, non-white and lower socio-economic status individuals' when aptitude questions are gamified - a general claim about gamification rather than a measured audit of Arctic Shores' own product.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/science-of-psychometric-assessments

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Fairness is argued from process standardisation ('every candidate gets the same opportunity regardless of background, gender, ethnicity or age') rather than from published differential-impact measurement.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/arctic-shores-solution

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No NYC Local Law 144 bias audit summary, independent audit report, or engagement with Warden AI, Holistic AI, BABL AI, DCI, ORCAA, Credo AI or ConductorAI was found via the trust centre, legal centre, compliance page, science page, resources hub or targeted web searches.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

FRIA Support

3 items35
  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    A deployer-facing article with an external privacy lawyer covers UK GDPR lawful bases, Article 22 automated decision-making, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, DPIAs as 'your source of truth', vendor documentation on bias testing, and briefly references the EU AI Act - but offers no FRIA template or Article 27 walkthrough.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/ai-recruitment-compliance-uk-what-ta-leaders-need-to-know

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    A trust centre exists but routes only to product security pages, a sub-processor list and the legal centre; it contains no AI Act, FRIA or impact-assessment material.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/trust-centre

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No Article 27 Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment template, EU AI Act deployer pack, or per-jurisdiction (NYC LL 144 / Illinois / Colorado) deployer guidance was found on the trust centre, legal centre, compliance page or resources hub.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

Data Governance Disclosure

7 items57

Human Oversight Design

5 items56
  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Explicit decision-support framing: the task 'assists you and your hiring managers in making better quality hiring decisions. But it never decides for you, meaning you stay in control of your process with no black boxes or unexplainable outcomes'.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/introducing-the-worlds-first-task-based-assessment-for-learning-agility

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Describes step-level scoring of every action a candidate takes and reports designed as 'accessible, actionable', supporting in-product explainability to hiring managers.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/una

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Candidates may automatically receive feedback (at the employer's discretion) presented on a 1-10 spectrum benchmarked against norm groups, with the page stating there is 'no better or worse'.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/candidate-guidance

  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Arctic Shores publicly articulates what meaningful human involvement requires - that humans define the criteria and can override outcomes, rather than reviewing every data point.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/insights/ai-recruitment-compliance-uk-what-ta-leaders-need-to-know

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No public documentation of concrete oversight machinery - override controls, audit logs, reviewer workflows, per-jurisdiction configuration toggles, or a candidate right-to-human-review process - was found on the product pages, trust centre, legal centre or candidate guidance; the candidate guidance page in particular explains neither the scoring method nor any appeal route.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

Post-Market Monitoring

3 items30
  • DocumentationCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Describes an internal governance cadence - policies 'reviewed on an annual basis, or when a significant change occurs', risk assessments at regular intervals, and vendor risk assessments - but this is internal ISMS practice, not published post-market monitoring.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/compliance

  • Public statementCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    Claims ongoing validation ('Our researchers conduct dozens of studies a year') but publishes none of the resulting studies or any monitoring output.

    https://www.arcticshores.com/science

  • AbsenceCaptured Aug 2, 2026

    No public status page (status.arcticshores.com returned no page), no product or model changelog, no release notes, no security.txt, no vulnerability disclosure or responsible disclosure policy, and no named security contact were found via the trust centre, compliance page, legal centre or targeted web searches.

    Have a URL that disputes this?

Customer Documentation

7 items64

Editorial notes

Company overview

Arctic Shores Limited (Companies House no. 08589048) was incorporated on 28 June 2013 and is registered at Lowry House, 17 Marble Street, Manchester. Its platform, branded "Una", replaces question-based psychometrics with interactive behavioural tasks: candidates are scored on what they do during the task rather than on what they say about themselves, producing a profile of what the company markets as "Skill-enablers" spanning personality, workplace intelligence and learning agility. The company reports use by over 350 organisations and publishes integrations with Greenhouse, SmartRecruiters, Teamtailor, Tribepad, Willo and Eploy alongside a standard API. Two positioning claims recur across the site: that the assessment is resistant to manipulation by generative AI, and that it is "never a black box". Note for the record: no product, module or feature named "Silhouette" could be located anywhere on arcticshores.com or in public sources, and that name should not be attributed to this vendor without further confirmation.

Regulatory exposure

As a provider of an AI-assisted candidate evaluation tool, Arctic Shores sits squarely in Annex III high-risk territory under the EU AI Act, with obligations landing from 2 August 2026, and it sells actively into European markets. Its strongest defensible position is architectural rather than documentary: the company consistently frames the product as decision-support that "never decides for you", which materially reduces (without eliminating) UK/EU GDPR Article 22 automated-decision exposure and supports a meaningful-human-oversight argument. Its weakest position is evidentiary. The company asserts on its science page that its assessment produces "no adverse impact, regardless of ethnicity or gender", and asserts on a product page that a task is "GDPR and EU AI Act compliant"- yet publishes no adverse-impact data, no independent bias audit, no technical documentation pack, no conformity-assessment reference, and no NYC Local Law 144 audit summary. Arctic Shores holds ISO 27001 but not ISO 42001, and its published compliance and security material is information-security-shaped, not AI-governance-shaped. US deployers in New York City, Illinois and Colorado would need to generate the required artefacts themselves, since the vendor supplies none of them publicly.

Path to a higher score

The single highest-value move is to publish an adverse-impact analysis - ideally an independent audit by a recognised auditor - carrying sample sizes, selection rates by race/ethnicity and sex, four-fifths-rule impact ratios and a dated scope statement. The unsupported "no adverse impact" claim is currently the widest gap between what Arctic Shores says and what it evidences, and closing it would move two rubric categories at once. Second, publish a technical documentation pack: a system/model card describing which behavioural signals are captured, how they are combined into scores, norm-group composition, validity and reliability coefficients and known limitations, plus Article 13-style instructions-for-use so deployers can meet their own obligations. Third, add explicit EU AI Act deployer guidance including an Article 27 FRIA template and a per-jurisdiction note covering NYC LL 144, Illinois and Colorado. Fourth - the cheapest fix and the lowest-scoring dimension - stand up a public post-market surface: a status page, a product/model changelog and a published vulnerability disclosure policy with a security contact. ISO 42001 certification would consolidate the first two and lift the technical-documentation and data-governance scores together.

Regulatory frame

What applies to assessment AI.

Assessment is the most-regulated surface in AI hiring. NYC LL 144, EEOC and OFCCP frameworks, Illinois HB 3773, and EU AI Act Annex III §4 all apply, with overlap on bias-audit obligations.

Keep reading

All assessment vendorsHow this score is builtAnnex IV section-by-section: what AI hiring vendors must documentWhat makes a defensible NYC LL 144 bias audit

Compare

Arctic Shores against its nearest-scoring peers.

The closest scores in Assessment AI, side by side.

Build any comparison

Ranking

Others rated in Assessment AI

Ranked 44 of 82 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.

  1. #41TalentLens46F
  2. #42Talkpush46F
  3. #43Vervoe46F
  4. #44Arctic ShoresThis profile46F
  5. #45Testlify45F
  6. #46Clevry45F
All assessment vendors

Conflicts of interest

No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.

Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.