IMO this kind of thing adds work and stress for the best students. If I'd been faced with something like this while I was in school I would have felt the need to basically curate a parallel construction AI discussion, knowing it would be judged. I understand the theory that, in the age of AI, the prompts are more interesting than the outputs, but I'm not convinced this is the way.

Things like the Denmark approach (and/or in-person written responses) seem like a better direction. Treat take-home writing the same as we've treated take-home math questions - as useful practice (for those who choose to actually engage with it), but not a significant input to grading.

Yes, I thought about that, and which is why I'm just running this as a pilot for this quarter to see how it goes and I'm not particularly attached to it if feedback/results are mixed. But that said, there are real constraints on my ability to supervise students with in-person examination, but that is more a problem with how my society funds and cares about education. We are forced to take approaches that 'work at scale', hence experiments like this. But truly, reception was positive when this was introduced, because students too want to be held to a good standard and don't want others to get credit for not doing the work toward achieving the learning outcomes like the most honest ones.