Criteria
HireAIScore rates Criteria 53 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed June 7, 2026. Criteria ranks 16 of 82 vendors rated in Assessment AI, against a category average of 46. That score is drawn from 18 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Criteria — 14 with a cited source, 4 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
Criteria, 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.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20% · category avg 50
68
+13.6
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 41
48
+8.6
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 31
32
+4.8
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 53
62
+9.3
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 55
56
+6.7
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 38
42
+5.0
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 58
60
+4.8
Total weighted score
52.9(rounded to 53 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
Article 11 Technical Documentation
68raw / 100
Contributes 13.6 to the total. 68 against a 50 category average.
Weakest criterion
FRIA Support
32raw / 100
Contributes 4.8 to the total. 32 against a 31 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 recordEvidence ledger
- Items
- 18
- Documentation
- 10
- Public statement
- 4
- Absence
- 4
- With a source URL
- 14 of 18
- Source hostnames
- 1
- Fewest items
- 2
- Bias Audit Transparency
These figures measure how thoroughly Criteria was reviewed, not how Criteria performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
3 items68
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public AI-principles page sets out nine guiding principles and states Criteria benchmarks its AI development, testing and monitoring against NIST, IEEE, ISO and the EU's Expert Group on AI.
https://www.criteriacorp.com/science/artificial-intelligence
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Security and compliance page states 'Criteria is ISO42001:2023 certified and SOC 2 Type II Compliant,' evidencing a formal AI management system per ISO/IEC 42001.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public model card, system card, explainability whitepaper or instructions-for-use document could be located on the AI-principles, security, or blog pages.
Bias Audit Transparency
2 items48
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
AI page states 'we also subject our systems to independent third-party audits for bias and disparate impact' and that results are 'summarized on our public website and are available to our clients to review.'
https://www.criteriacorp.com/science/artificial-intelligence
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No downloadable bias-audit PDF, NYC Local Law 144 summary page, named auditor (e.g., BABL AI, Holistic AI, DCI) or audit date could be found via the AI page, security page, or web search.
FRIA Support
2 items32
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
A security/compliance package and Trust Center plus DPA exist, giving deployers some governance artifacts but no Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment material.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No FRIA template, EU AI Act Article 26/27 deployer-obligation guidance, or fundamental-rights assessment content was found anywhere on the site or blog.
Data Governance Disclosure
3 items62
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Security page lists ISO 42001:2023, ISO 27001:2022 ISMS, SOC 2 Type II, AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS in transit, and GDPR/CCPA/Australian Privacy Principles adherence.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Publicly viewable Data Processing Addendum sets GDPR processor terms, Standard Contractual Clauses, a sub-processor list in Annex III, and 72-hour breach notification.
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
AI page describes a centralized 'Criteria AI Core' that limits and controls the data passed to AI products and notes job-relevant training data across 10M+ candidates, 100+ countries and 600+ occupational categories.
https://www.criteriacorp.com/science/artificial-intelligence
Human Oversight Design
2 items56
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
AI principle states 'AI works best when it supports and enables human decision making, as opposed to replacing it,' with clients able to customize and monitor AI usage and receive explanations of how products function.
https://www.criteriacorp.com/science/artificial-intelligence
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Blog frames AI as a decision-support tool combining human and machine judgment, emphasizing humans as the ultimate decision-makers.
https://www.criteriacorp.com/blog/ai-hiring-getting-the-best-humans-and-artificial-intelligence
Post-Market Monitoring
3 items42
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
AI page states 'We monitor and evaluate the products ourselves once they are released, through our own research studies, user feedback, and detailed logging.'
https://www.criteriacorp.com/science/artificial-intelligence
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Cybersecurity FAQ describes third-party penetration testing, intrusion detection, breach-notification escalation procedures and a $5m cyber-insurance policy.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public system-status page, AI model-update changelog, or continuous-monitoring dashboard could be found (no status.criteriacorp.com).
Customer Documentation
3 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Dedicated security and compliance hub with certifications, encryption details, DPA link, Trust Center (infosec.criteriacorp.com) and security contact security@criteriacorp.com.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Customer-facing cybersecurity FAQ covering certifications, data classification, breach notification and how to request a Security Pack via the Customer Success Manager.
- Public statementCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Blog discussing AI hiring bias regulation and the NYC AEDT rule, in which CEO Josh Millet critiques the rule's scope but offers no employer compliance guidance.
https://www.criteriacorp.com/blog/whats-store-ai-hiring-bias-regulation
Editorial notes
Company overview
Criteria Corp, founded in 2006 and headquartered in Los Angeles, is a pre-employment assessment vendor that publishes cognitive aptitude (e.g., CCAT), personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests backed by industrial/organizational psychology research, alongside structured-interview and AI-assisted interview-intelligence products. It serves thousands of customers across 50+ states and 60+ countries, and tests its assessments on job-relevant data covering more than 10 million candidates annually. Its public 'science' and 'security and compliance' pages position the company around validity, fairness and EEOC/SIOP/APA testing standards rather than around a dedicated regulatory-compliance program.
Regulatory exposure
Criteria's assessment scores 'substantially assist or replace' discretionary hiring decisions, placing its tools squarely within scope of NYC Local Law 144 (AEDT), the EU AI Act's Annex III high-risk employment category, and US state AI-hiring laws (Illinois, Colorado). The company states it commissions independent third-party bias and disparate-impact audits and benchmarks against NIST, IEEE, ISO and the EU AI Expert Group, and it holds ISO 42001:2023, ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type II. However, the actual bias-audit summaries are not openly downloadable (gated to clients), and the company publishes no EU AI Act deployer guidance, no FRIA template, and no explicit Local Law 144 employer-compliance pack; its CEO has publicly criticized the NYC AEDT rule rather than offering deployers a compliance path.
Path to a higher score
Criteria already has unusually strong foundations for an assessment vendor (ISO 42001, ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II, a public AI-principles page and a DPA). To raise its score it should publish its third-party bias/disparate-impact audit summaries as openly downloadable reports naming the auditor and date (ideally two consecutive years), release an EU AI Act deployer pack with a FRIA template and Article 26/27 guidance plus a Local Law 144 employer kit, publish an AI/model card or system card and instructions-for-use leveraging its ISO 42001 program, and stand up a public status/incident or model-update channel to evidence continuous post-market monitoring.
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.
Compare
Criteria against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in Assessment AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideCriteria vs Plum54F
- Side-by-sideCriteria vs Metaview54F
- Side-by-sideCriteria vs Codility54F
- Side-by-sideCriteria vs HiringBranch52F
Ranking
Others rated in Assessment AI
Ranked 16 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.
- #13Plum54F
- #14Metaview54F
- #15Codility54F
- #16CriteriaThis profile53F
- #17HiringBranch52F
- #18Glider AI52F
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.