frontier research deep techhuman factorshuman robot interactionrosuser studies
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
Theoretical command
35% weight
Probe command of human factors theory behind HRI: trust calibration in automation, situation awareness models, legibility and intent expression, proxemics, NASA-TLX and SUS instrumentation.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the underlying theory at the level the role demands, and can go a layer deeper when pushed
Knows which results are established and which are contested
Distinguishes their own contribution from the field's
Comfortable saying where the theory runs out
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Recites terminology without understanding; cannot go one layer deeper.
2
Needs Improvement
Surface familiarity; conflates established results with speculation.
3
Satisfactory
Solid grasp of the core theory; thin at the frontier.
4
Very Good
Strong command; separates settled results from open questions.
5
Excellent
Cites specific constructs such as trust repair after robot error or legible motion planning, and names where each theory breaks down.
02
Evaluation factor
From theory to hardware or code
30% weight
Test whether they build, not just publish: ROS 2 nodes, MoveIt, Unity or Gazebo study harnesses, teleoperation interfaces, logging pipelines for gaze and intervention data.
Evidence to listen for
Has built, simulated, or run something real, not only published about it
Knows the gap between the idealised model and the actual apparatus or system
Names the practical constraint that dominates in real conditions
Can describe a result that did not match prediction
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Purely theoretical; no contact with implementation.
2
Needs Improvement
Some exposure but unaware of practical constraints.
3
Satisfactory
Has implemented work; understands the main real-world limits.
4
Very Good
Strong practical record; articulate about theory-versus-reality gaps.
5
Excellent
Describes a robot behaviour or interface they coded, deployed on real hardware, and iterated after participants misread it.
03
Evaluation factor
Research judgement
20% weight
Assess study design judgement: within versus between subjects, Wizard of Oz use, deception debriefs, IRB or ethics approval, sample sizing, and knowing when a lab result will not survive deployment.
Evidence to listen for
Chooses problems by tractability and value, not novelty alone
Knows when to abandon a line of work
Reads and evaluates others' results critically
Can say what would falsify their own approach
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Chases novelty; no sense of tractability or when to stop.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak problem selection; persists past the point of value.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable judgement within a defined programme.
4
Very Good
Selects problems well and knows when to abandon a line.
5
Excellent
Explains a design choice they reversed after piloting, and distinguishes findings robust in the field from lab-only artefacts.
04
Evaluation factor
Explaining it to non-specialists
15% weight
Look for translation to product and safety teams: turning study findings into interaction specs, ISO 10218 or ISO/TS 15066 collaborative limits, and briefing engineers who want a number, not a paper.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the work to an engineer, an executive, or a funder without either mystifying or dumbing it down
Writes clearly
Collaborates across disciplines
Makes the case for resources in terms the audience cares about
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Explanation is either impenetrable or hollow.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate with technical peers; less effective with lay audiences.
4
Very Good
Explains clearly to specialists and non-specialists alike.
5
Excellent
Converts nuanced behavioural findings into concrete design requirements and defends them to hardware leads without jargon or hedging.
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.
