Draft a structured interview scorecard
Organize interview evidence against job-specific criteria so a hiring team can review a consistent draft assessment.
How this works
Organize interview evidence against job-specific criteria so a hiring team can review a consistent draft assessment. Use this after an interview to organize what was actually observed against the agreed role criteria. The draft should make missing evidence easy to see and leave evaluation and selection with the interviewer and hiring team.
Map timestamped statements and examples to the role-specific rubric, draft concise explanations and flag contradictions. If ratings are requested, use only the supplied definitions and retain a human-confirmation state. Do not infer personality, protected traits or ability from absent notes.
Before you start
Role scorecard
Obtain the criteria and any approved rating definitions.
Permitted interview evidence
Use the transcript or notes for this interview stage.
Interviewer review
Identify who confirms the evidence and final assessment.
Prepare the inputs
- interview_record
- Required
speaker-labeled notes with references
Mark uncertain transcription and incomplete sections.
- role_criteria
- Required
job-related definitions and expected evidence
Exclude criteria not approved for the role.
- rating_scale
- Required
optional explicit anchors
Do not invent numerical scores when no scale exists.
- stage_scope
- Required
competencies covered and deferred
Separate unasked topics from insufficient answers.
Implementation, step by step
Prepare the evidence map
- Read the full record and attach relevant excerpts to each criterion.
- Keep interviewer comments separate from candidate statements.
Checkpoint: The scorecard has traceable evidence.
Check coverage
- Identify criteria with examples, partial evidence or no discussion.
- Preserve contradictions and uncertain attribution.
Checkpoint: Gaps are explicit.
Draft explanations
- Write concise factual summaries explaining how evidence relates to the criterion.
- Avoid unsupported adjectives and invented outcomes.
Checkpoint: Each criterion has a reviewable rationale.
Apply supplied anchors
- If ratings are requested, propose them only against the approved definitions.
- Mark ambiguous cases for the interviewer rather than forcing a score.
Checkpoint: Ratings remain provisional.
Review and finalize
- Ask the interviewer to correct facts and confirm the assessment.
- Retain the draft and approved versions separately.
Checkpoint: The hiring team receives an accountable record.
Decisions along the way
No evidence for a criterion
Mark not assessed or insufficient evidence according to the rubric.
Team achievement lacks personal contribution
State the reported team result and ask for clarification.
Evidence supports several anchors
Explain the ambiguity and leave the decision to the interviewer.
What you will produce
interview-scorecard-draft.md
MarkdownA consistent draft for interviewer review.
Include: criterion · evidence · rationale · provisional_rating · gap
scorecard-review-log.csv
CSVA record of human-confirmed changes.
Include: criterion · correction · confirmed_by · status
Check the result
- Verify every factual statement against the interview record.
- Check rating anchors match the supplied rubric.
- Confirm missing evidence is not automatically scored negatively.
- Remove irrelevant personal details and protected-trait inferences.
When something goes wrong
Transcript attribution is uncertain
Verify the segment before using it as evidence.
Rubric changes after the interview
Flag unassessed criteria rather than retrofit evidence.
Draft overstates an outcome
Return to the exact statement and qualify it.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: draft a planning scorecard.
Inputs
Rubric asks for prioritizing competing deadlines. Candidate describes delaying one task after consulting two teams but does not state the outcome.
Expected result
Synthetic result: summarize the prioritization action and mark outcome evidence missing. Do not write 'successfully delivered every project' or issue a hiring recommendation.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Draft scorecards for one stage with interviewer confirmation.
Record the baseline
Record preparation time and factual corrections.
Agree success criteria
Agree evidence accuracy and rubric consistency before broader use.
Stop or revise
Stop automated drafting if it becomes an unreviewed selection decision.
Keep the scope clear
- The scorecard supports qualified hiring review rather than selecting candidates.
- Use only job-related evidence within the authorized recruiting process.
Check before using
Check evidence and bias; the hiring team remains responsible for decisions.
Business activities
- Hire and assess candidates
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Interview transcript · Role requirements · Candidate-provided experience · Defined scoring rubric
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow