So just mentioning my own anecdata here; I've had reasonable success converting a "code + written report" assignment into a "code + structured video report", where the code is assessed "exclusively" through the video report, and where the student needs to demonstrate ownership and understanding of the code, explain and defend design decisions, etc.
Yes, in principle it is possible for the student to generate a "script" and narrate it during the video presentation, but this is fairly easy to detect, and in general, given enough flexibility / subjectivity in the marking scheme, you can always downmark such students on the basis that their presentation demonstrated lack of understanding and ownership of the codebase, without having to go into too much specifics.
Obviously one implication of the above is that you no longer care if their code was "manually" written vs AI "assisted"; only if they have a good grasp / ownership of it, and can defend the broader architecture and design decisions. But I feel that this is realistic in the age of AI, since this is largely what will be expected from their future employers too.