Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Hands-on competence
35% weight
Check hands-on command of stocking density, grading, feed conversion ratio targets, oxygen and salinity monitoring, net pen or RAS biofilter management, and harvest planning against growth curves.
Evidence to listen for
Names the equipment, materials, and tolerances they work to
Can describe a job start to finish without hand-waving the hard parts
Holds the tickets, licences, or certifications the work requires, and they are current
Knows what they are not qualified to touch
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe the work concretely; lacks required tickets or licences.
2
Needs Improvement
Basic familiarity; needs supervision on routine tasks.
3
Satisfactory
Competent on standard work; slower or unsure on unfamiliar jobs.
4
Very Good
Skilled and independent across the normal range of the role.
5
Excellent
Names species farmed, cites FCR and mortality figures, and explains grading, feeding regimes and RAS or cage system maintenance in operational detail.
02
Evaluation factor
Safety discipline
30% weight
Probe biosecurity protocols, sea lice or parasite treatment records, disinfection footbaths, escape prevention, plus staff safety around boats, lone working, winching and confined spaces.
Evidence to listen for
Treats procedure as protection rather than paperwork
Can describe a time they stopped work and why
Knows the specific hazards of this trade and the controls for each
Reports near misses instead of hiding them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Casual about safety; describes shortcuts with pride.
2
Needs Improvement
Follows procedure when watched; cannot name the hazards that matter.
3
Satisfactory
Sound safety habits; less certain on unfamiliar hazards.
4
Very Good
Safety is instinctive; can describe stopping work over a real concern.
5
Excellent
Describes documented biosecurity zones, veterinary health plans and vaccination logs, and halts operations when weather, moorings or diving conditions are unsafe.
03
Evaluation factor
Fault finding
20% weight
Test response to a dissolved oxygen crash, algal bloom, pump or aerator failure, or sudden mortality spike: what they measured first and how they isolated cause.
Evidence to listen for
Has a method for narrowing a fault rather than swapping parts
Reads schematics, manuals, or error codes and acts on them
Knows when to escalate rather than guess
Can describe a fault that took real work to find
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Parts-swapper; no diagnostic method.
2
Needs Improvement
Fixes symptoms; cannot explain how they found the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Solid on familiar faults; less structured on new ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic method with a real hard-fault story.
5
Excellent
Walks through a real mortality or plant failure event, the water chemistry and histology evidence used, and the corrective action that stopped losses.
04
Evaluation factor
Reliability and conduct
15% weight
Assess staff rostering across tides and weekends, record keeping for permits, effluent and escape reporting, and dealings with vets, feed suppliers and processing plants.
Evidence to listen for
Turns up, on time, prepared
Handles shift work, callouts, or travel as the role requires
Documents work so the next person can pick it up
Deals with customers or site staff professionally
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unreliable attendance; unprofessional on site.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent; documentation is an afterthought.
3
Satisfactory
Dependable; paperwork is adequate.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable, documents well, professional with customers.
5
Excellent
Shows steady tenure through harvest cycles, audit-ready logs for regulators and certifiers (ASC, BAP), and crews retained across demanding seasons.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
