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
Method and rigour
35% weight
Check their command of death investigation method: scene documentation, chain of custody for personal effects, NAME or jurisdictional case protocols, toxicology ordering, and criteria for autopsy versus external exam.
Evidence to listen for
Follows and can justify an established methodology
Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.
3
Satisfactory
Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.
4
Very Good
Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.
5
Excellent
Names specific scene and case protocols, explains autopsy referral thresholds, and describes how custody of remains and effects is documented.
02
Evaluation factor
Real casework
25% weight
Probe actual caseload: annual case volume, mix of overdose, motor vehicle, homicide, custodial and unattended natural deaths, plus mass fatality or infant death investigations handled.
Evidence to listen for
Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
States their own role and what they personally handled
Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
Knows what happened to the work afterwards
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.
2
Needs Improvement
Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.
3
Satisfactory
Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.
4
Very Good
Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.
5
Excellent
Cites concrete case counts and types, including sensitive categories such as custodial or pediatric deaths, with their own role clearly defined.
03
Evaluation factor
Interpretation and judgement
25% weight
Test how they reach cause and manner determinations: weighing medical history, toxicology levels, pathologist findings, and ruling undetermined rather than forcing a manner.
Evidence to listen for
Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.
2
Needs Improvement
Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.
4
Very Good
Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.
5
Excellent
Walks through a contested manner determination, distinguishes cause from mechanism, and defends amending or leaving a certificate undetermined.
04
Evaluation factor
Reporting and testimony
15% weight
Assess death certificate accuracy, inquest or grand jury testimony, next-of-kin notification practice, and how they handle media, attorneys, and public records requests.
Evidence to listen for
Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.
2
Needs Improvement
Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.
4
Very Good
Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.
5
Excellent
Describes testimony under cross-examination, writes defensible certificates, and delivers notifications to families with documented, composed practice.
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.
