Another aspect that would be helpful is to let the candidate implement the suggestions they make directly in the code. For example, say that you deliberately introduce a bug or issue, and then in addition of them pointing it out, a follow-up question of "how would you fix it?", the discussion about that, and the final fix, would be very beneficial signals. For this to work, it's not sufficient to have a read-only interface that allows adding comments only[1], but they should have access to a proper IDE.
Of course, they could always game this as they would a leetcode exercise, but I think that allowing candidates to use all tools at their disposal during interviews that they would use during actual work ultimately helps you judge their real performance. This includes their own editor, with autocompletion, AI assistance, access to documentation, online resources, etc.
We'll have to accept the fact that AI tools are here to stay, rather than setup artificial interview scenarios that don't reflect the reality of their day to day work. The actual discussion during the interview will allow interviewers to judge performance, and, perhaps more importantly, whether they want to work with this person or not.
[1]: Why would they need to type in their feedback during a live interview? I saw text comments in one of your screenshots. Are reviews meant to be conducted asynchronously?