In my experience (I've tested this approach a few times with non-law grad schemes that I wasn't very interested in) and from some research and online discussions, it looks like you do better if you're decisive/polarising in your answers as it shows that you're not trying to "please" by sitting in the middle, that you're self-aware, and that you have the specific strengths they may be looking for. The broad headline skills you get at the end with a feedback report with the usual words like Communication/Teamwork/Drive/Resilience can give you an idea of these strengths, and there's usually some minor indication of what they're expecting you to respond with. I've previously been told that I'm naturally collaborative but don't take any personal responsibility, and if I try to match my answers more towards personal responsibility, it says that I'm poor at collaboration (I think this is clearly undesirable in literally any job/profession).
The best general advice remains to consider what a trainee solicitor, with all their skills and limitations, should be doing in the situation.
It's tricky to try and understand if this is necessarily where you're falling short because virtually all firms both law and non-law will send an SJT automatically before reading your application. Unless you're explicitly receiving poor feedback reports or being told that you didn't meet their benchmark score, I would probably revisit the application. It's also a process of luck, unfortunately.
Fact of the matter is, online assessments will not be fair if you're completely honest as Grad Rec advises you to be. They're called assessments rather than personality questionnaires for a reason. It's just an extra step that you need to know how to tackle in the same way people talk about personalising your application answers with your own experiences, highlighting what you did, learned, and gained from the experience and how it's linked to the firm/role etc.
I know I wrote a lot, but hopefully that helps!
