Review the quality of interview notes
Help interviewers write specific feedback by comparing their notes with the role rubric and strong examples.
How this works
Help interviewers write specific feedback by comparing their notes with the role rubric and strong examples. Use this to improve how interviewers document evidence, not to evaluate the candidate again. The useful result is specific coaching on vague, unsupported or incomplete notes against the agreed rubric.
Compare the written scorecard with documentation standards and examples of strong evidence. Identify missing behavioral detail, unsupported ratings and contradictions while preserving the interviewer's original text. Ask for clarification instead of inventing what the candidate said.
Before you start
Role rubric
Obtain competencies and the expected evidence for this interview stage.
Documentation standards
Define what counts as a specific observation, supported rating and unresolved gap.
Reviewed examples
Use anonymized strong and weak notes to illustrate quality, not candidate suitability.
Prepare the inputs
- scorecard
- Required
criterion, rating, notes and interviewer
Preserve the original version before proposing edits.
- rubric
- Required
job-related criteria and rating definitions
Do not substitute a generic personality assessment.
- evidence_policy
- Required
documentation quality rules
Separate note quality from hiring recommendations.
- optional_transcript
- Required
permitted timestamped interview text
Use only to verify quoted evidence, not infer protected traits.
Implementation, step by step
Map notes to criteria
- Associate each note and rating with the relevant rubric item.
- Identify blank fields and comments unrelated to the role.
Checkpoint: A completeness map exists.
Inspect evidence quality
- Find claims lacking examples, outcomes or observable behavior.
- Distinguish an absent note from evidence that the candidate lacks a skill.
Checkpoint: The review lists specific documentation gaps.
Check rating support
- Compare each rating with the rubric definition and written evidence.
- Flag contradictions and unsupported certainty without assigning a replacement hiring score.
Checkpoint: Each concern references the original text.
Draft coaching feedback
- Suggest a precise clarification question or evidence-based rewrite structure.
- Do not fabricate details to make a weak note sound complete.
Checkpoint: The interviewer receives actionable edits.
Prepare the corrected record
- Let the interviewer confirm facts and revise the scorecard.
- Retain the original and corrections so quality review cannot silently alter interview evidence.
Checkpoint: The final notes have an accountable author.
Decisions along the way
Note says only 'strong candidate'
Ask which observed behavior supports which rubric criterion.
Rating is high but evidence is mixed
Flag the mismatch and request the interviewer's explanation.
Transcript contradicts a note
Present the timestamped discrepancy for correction without deciding candidate suitability.
What you will produce
scorecard-quality-review.md
MarkdownCoaching on documentation quality only.
Include: criterion · issue · evidence · clarification · suggested_structure
scorecard-corrections.csv
CSVA record of interviewer-confirmed changes.
Include: field · original · proposed · confirmed_by · status
Check the result
- Ensure feedback targets note quality rather than candidate selection.
- Verify all quoted interview evidence against the permitted source.
- Check that missing evidence is not described as a negative finding.
- Confirm no invented examples enter the revised scorecard.
When something goes wrong
Rubric unavailable
Review basic clarity only and mark rating support unassessed.
Notes contain sensitive irrelevant details
Exclude them from coaching artifacts and ask the owner to handle the record appropriately.
Interviewer cannot recall evidence
Leave the criterion insufficiently documented rather than reconstructing an answer.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: review a collaboration scorecard.
Inputs
Rubric asks for a concrete example of resolving disagreement. Note says 'Good communicator, 5/5' with no example; another field records 'did not discuss conflict.'
Expected result
Synthetic result: flag unsupported rating and conflicting coverage. Ask the interviewer whether a relevant example was discussed; do not invent a conflict-resolution story or lower the candidate's score automatically.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Review anonymized scorecards from one interview stage.
Record the baseline
Record reviewer time and the share of notes requiring factual clarification.
Agree success criteria
Agree documentation completeness and coaching usefulness criteria with recruiters.
Stop or revise
Stop if the review begins producing selection or rejection recommendations.
Keep the scope clear
- Documentation quality is not a proxy for candidate ability.
- Hiring decisions remain with qualified reviewers using job-related evidence.
Check before using
Make sure the review assesses documentation quality; a person makes the hiring decision.
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 rubric · Feedback examples · Interviewer notes
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow