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
Portfolio
35% weight
Review actual map outputs: topographic sheets, thematic choropleths, atlas spreads, web tile styles. Ask which projection, scale range, and data sources each used, and who published it.
Evidence to listen for
Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
States what they made versus what the team or a template made
Shows range rather than one repeated style
Can walk through a piece from brief to final
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.
2
Needs Improvement
Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.
3
Satisfactory
Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.
4
Very Good
Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.
5
Excellent
Shows varied published maps across scales and media, naming projections, source datasets, print specs, and their own role on each sheet.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Test command of generalisation, label placement, colour ramps for sequential versus diverging data, and tools: ArcGIS Pro, QGIS, Illustrator with MAPublisher, Mapbox Studio or CartoCSS.
Evidence to listen for
Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
Names the tools they are genuinely fast in
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.
3
Satisfactory
Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.
5
Excellent
Defends classification breaks, hierarchy, and typographic choices with cartographic reasoning, including colour-vision-safe ramps and legibility at target output size.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Probe how they handled cartographic review cycles: redline markups from subject experts, client comments on draft plates, accessibility fixes, or corrections after a positional error was flagged.
Evidence to listen for
Takes critique without treating it as an attack
Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
Iterates fast rather than defending version one
Delivers files correctly and on time
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Defensive about critique; will not revise.
2
Needs Improvement
Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.
3
Satisfactory
Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.
4
Very Good
Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.
5
Excellent
Describes specific redlines absorbed, distinguishes taste feedback from data accuracy issues, and shows before and after versions of revised plates.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Assess scoping work: negotiating scale and sheet size, sourcing OS, OSM, LiDAR or census data, metadata and licensing constraints, and hitting print or publication deadlines.
Evidence to listen for
Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
Flags an impossible brief early
Hands over files and assets others can actually use
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.
2
Needs Improvement
Starts designing before understanding the goal.
3
Satisfactory
Asks the right questions when prompted.
4
Very Good
Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.
5
Excellent
Turns vague requests into a defined map spec covering audience, scale, projection, data licensing, and delivery format before drafting begins.
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.
