public sector communityfirst contact protocolmultilateral negotiationouter space treatyspace diplomacy
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
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Check for negotiated instruments they actually moved: Artemis Accords style bilateral annexes, COPUOS working group text, spectrum coordination filings at ITU, or signed planetary protection undertakings.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names specific agreements, clauses or memoranda they drafted or brokered, with parties involved and the sticking point they resolved.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they convene mismatched parties: national space agencies, commercial launch operators, astrobiology panels, defence liaisons, and press, when incentives and timelines openly conflict.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes running multi-party sessions where they surfaced hidden objections, sequenced concessions, and kept a hostile delegation at the table.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of the Outer Space Treaty, Liability and Registration Conventions, COSPAR planetary protection categories, SETI post-detection protocols, and export control limits on shared technical data.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites the governing instrument and article for a given scenario, and states honestly where the legal regime is silent or contested.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Assess how they brief decision-makers: threat and opportunity assessments, scenario memos, red team reviews of contact assumptions, and what evidence standard they demand before escalating.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Produces written assessments with stated confidence levels, distinguishes verified signal from speculation, and logs dissenting views rather than smoothing them.
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.
