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
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check they have run peak dinner rush in a multi-brand ghost kitchen: ask for ticket times, order accuracy rates, driver wait minutes and covers pushed per hour.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Quotes real throughput numbers from named sites, such as cutting average ticket time from 18 to 11 minutes at peak.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe concrete station redesigns, batch prep schedules, menu item pruning or KDS routing changes they made, and what food cost or waste percentage moved as a result.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Describes a specific change (station relayout, SKU cull) with before and after waste, food cost or prep time figures.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Assess how they decide during a live failure: fryer down, aggregator outage on Deliveroo, or three virtual brands slammed at once with one cook short.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Explains a clear triage order, when they pause a brand on the app, and owns a call that cost them something.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Look for how they brief kitchen crew, brand partners and aggregator account managers; ask for the report or dashboard they sent operators weekly.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Shows a plain weekly ops report tying prep-time and cancellation data to actions crew and brand owners actually adopted.
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.
