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 work with LN2 and liquid helium transfers, vacuum jacketed lines, dewar filling, cryostat assembly, pumping stations, and cryocooler service (Gifford-McMahon or pulse tube).
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 specific cool-down procedures, transfer line and bayonet handling, adsorber changes, and cryocooler rebuild intervals with actual pressures and temperatures.
02
Evaluation factor
Safety discipline
30% weight
Probe oxygen deficiency hazard monitoring, relief device verification, cold burn PPE, confined space rules, CGA and ASME B31.3 practice, and lockout tagout on compressors.
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 ODH class assessments, relief path checks before cooldown, and a time they halted a fill over a suspect burst disc or blocked vent.
03
Evaluation factor
Fault finding
20% weight
Ask how they traced vacuum degradation, helium leaks, blocked capillaries, or rising base temperature using mass spectrometer leak detectors, Cernox or thermocouple data, and pressure logs.
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 a leak hunt or thermal short diagnosis step by step, distinguishing virtual leaks from real ones and citing the measured recovery.
04
Evaluation factor
Reliability and conduct
15% weight
Look for evidence of shift discipline on continuous plant: liquefier and recovery logs, inventory reconciliation, callout availability, and handover notes for magnet or accelerator users.
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 consistent logbook and helium inventory records, low unplanned downtime, and researchers or operators who trusted their handovers.
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.
