> a) I've found that lots of design applicants will put stuff in their portfolio that they contributed to, rather than built end-to-end. This solves that problem.
Effective designers (and effective hiring managers) have already solved this problem by describing their role in projects (or asking about specific roles in the interview process). Don't hire designers that have a portfolio full of nothing but sex-shots.
> "what is your process to build the right UX."
I agree that is the intention of this sort of application requirement, but I'd be surprised if it consistently worked. These sorts of requirements force designers to work in a vacuum. It is impossible to make an effective solution without having a deep understanding of the product—the hiring company will get a tepid/run of the mill/boring design. (Though perhaps a beautiful design, which often works for these sorts of interviews)
> But on the other end it makes them a lot more likely to find an awesome candidate who actually wants to work there, and has the talent to deliver the goods.
It's maybe likely to find them someone that wants to work with them (especially if we define "wants to work here" as "willing to do spec work" which may be fair) but in my experience, talented designers are busy working on cool projects and students/young designers are the ones with time to dedicate to this sort of application.