Interview scorecard template

Digital Trust and Safety Officer interview scorecard

Evaluate Digital Trust and Safety Officer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check command of policy enforcement tooling: moderation queues, hash-matching systems like PhotoDNA, NCMEC reporting flows, DSA and Online Safety Act duties, and classifier. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security compliancecontent moderationdsa complianceplatform policytrust and safety
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific enforcement stacks and regulatory obligations, and explains where automated detection fails and human review must intervene. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate walks through named investigations with volumes, evidence trails, escalation paths, and the enforcement outcome or law enforcement referral. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

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

Technical depth

35% weight

Check command of policy enforcement tooling: moderation queues, hash-matching systems like PhotoDNA, NCMEC reporting flows, DSA and Online Safety Act duties, and classifier precision or recall trade-offs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Names specific enforcement stacks and regulatory obligations, and explains where automated detection fails and human review must intervene.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe actual casework: coordinated inauthentic behaviour takedowns, CSAM or terrorist content escalations, fraud rings, or harassment brigades they personally investigated and actioned.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Walks through named investigations with volumes, evidence trails, escalation paths, and the enforcement outcome or law enforcement referral.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test how they weigh user safety against free expression, false positive cost, appeal volume, and legal exposure when a borderline account or viral post is in question.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Reasons through borderline calls with a defensible framework, cites appeal reversal rates, and states clearly when they escalated rather than acted alone.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Assess how they drove change: policy rewrites shipped, moderator guidance updated, product friction added, and how they moved engineering or legal to close a systemic abuse gap.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Points to policies or product controls they authored that shipped, with measurable drops in violative prevalence or repeat offender rates.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Digital Trust and Safety Officer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience with digital risk management and a major incident you handled?

  2. 02

    How do you handle the investigation of a suspected data breach?

  3. 03

    What experience do you have with incident response and recovery plans?

  4. 04

    How do you prioritise when several security issues need attention at once?

  5. 05

    Describe a situation where you had to balance security concerns with user experience.

See the complete Digital Trust and Safety Officer question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards