> Make them write code in front of you live as part of the screening round.
I think there's always lots of arguing over what's the correct way to do this.
Ideally, I think you'd basically have any number of options, from which you (the candidate) could pick whatever feels the most suitable:
[ ] - solve an algorithmic problem in person, show code, discuss now
[ ] - solve an algorithmic problem later, share Git repo, discuss later
[ ] - solve a real world problem in person, show code, discuss now
[ ] - solve a real world problem later, share Git repo, discuss later
That would solve the issue of person anxiety and time sensitivity - e.g. some people's nerves getting the best of them, even though it wouldn't solve the issue of someone else being able to do the task for them.
Then again, many companies/countries out there have a sort of grace period, for example, in Latvia that is 3 months - during which an employee's suitability for the work environment is assessed.
So, give them low priority issues to solve in non-core products, or even additional code tests to work on or prototypes to build, which should very quickly show whether they're suited or not.
More so, in some companies your salary during this period can be lower and the laws around quitting (or being fired) can also be more streamlined.
Of course, one could argue that some would exploit this to just rotate people after 3 months for low salaries, but I would at least hope that such attempts would be glaringly obvious and not much would get done in just 3 months of work.