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 command of human health risk assessment mechanics: exposure point concentrations, RfDs and slope factors from IRIS or PPRTV, EPA RSL screening, ProUCL statistics, and Monte Carlo probabilistic runs.
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
Explains exposure pathway selection, receptor scenarios and toxicity value hierarchy fluently, citing specific EPA or ATSDR guidance documents by name.
02
Evaluation factor
Real casework
25% weight
Probe actual assessments delivered: contaminated sites, vapour intrusion, drinking water, air toxics or occupational exposures, including media sampled, receptor populations, and regulatory programme (CERCLA, RCRA, state voluntary cleanup).
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
Names concrete sites or projects with contaminants, hazard indices and cancer risk estimates produced, and the cleanup or permitting decision that followed.
03
Evaluation factor
Interpretation and judgement
25% weight
Test how they handle non-detects, limited datasets, background comparison, cumulative and mixture effects, and where they refuse to extrapolate beyond what the sampling data supports.
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
Distinguishes conservative screening from refined assessment, quantifies uncertainty explicitly, and describes a case where they revised or rejected an initial conclusion.
04
Evaluation factor
Reporting and testimony
15% weight
Assess written and spoken delivery: risk assessment reports for regulators, responses to agency comment letters, community meeting presentations, and any deposition or expert testimony experience.
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
Translates hazard quotients and one-in-a-million risk into plain language for anxious residents without softening or overstating the underlying findings.
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.
