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
Body of work
35% weight
Ask for actual assignments: language pairs, domains (court, medical, patent, subtitling), word volumes, plus any certifications such as ATA, CIOL, NAATI or state court credentials.
Evidence to listen for
Has work that exists publicly and can be checked
States what they made versus what they contributed to
Can talk about range as well as their signature style
Knows how the work was received and by whom
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Nothing finished or public; describes intentions rather than output.
2
Needs Improvement
Small or unverifiable body of work; unclear personal contribution.
3
Satisfactory
Real output with adequate range; reception described vaguely.
4
Very Good
Substantial verifiable work with clear ownership and range.
5
Excellent
Names specific assignments and clients, cites certification and directionality, and shows sustained volume in a defined domain rather than scattered odd jobs.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Probe technique: consecutive note-taking systems, simultaneous decalage, sight translation, and tool fluency in Trados, memoQ, Phrase, or subtitle timing in Subtitle Edit.
Evidence to listen for
Can discuss technique concretely rather than in terms of feel or vibe
Names influences and what they took from each
Explains a deliberate choice and the effect it was for
Knows their own weak areas and what they do about them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No technical vocabulary; cannot discuss choices behind the work.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in generalities; choices sound accidental.
3
Satisfactory
Solid craft with some ability to explain decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about technique and deliberate about effect.
5
Excellent
Explains register shifts, glossary and termbase building, and handles idiom or untranslatable concepts with reasoned strategies, not literal word swaps.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Check turnaround discipline: deadline record on large files, QA steps before delivery, revision and back-translation habits, confidentiality and NDA handling, booth partner rotation practice.
Evidence to listen for
Meets deadlines and briefs, with evidence
Handles revisions and direction without ego
Describes how they work when the brief is vague or changes late
Has repeat clients, bookings, or collaborators
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Misses commitments; cannot take direction.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent delivery; defensive about revisions.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on clear briefs; struggles when direction shifts.
4
Very Good
Consistently delivers and adapts; repeat collaborators.
5
Excellent
Describes a repeatable QA pass, tracked deadlines with volume figures, and clear rules on declining work outside their competence or capacity.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Assess live composure: managing fast speakers, accents, unclear source audio, remote platforms like Zoom RSI or KUDO, and intervening neutrally without taking over the exchange.
Evidence to listen for
Comfortable performing or presenting on demand, including cold
Reads a room and adjusts
Handles a bad night, a difficult client, or a hostile crowd without unravelling
Represents the employer well in front of others
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot perform or present on request; unravels under pressure.
2
Needs Improvement
Rigid delivery; no read of the room.
3
Satisfactory
Competent in familiar settings; less adaptable in new ones.
4
Very Good
Strong presence and adapts to the room.
5
Excellent
Stays invisible yet audible; recounts real moments of correcting an error mid-session or requesting clarification without breaking speaker flow.
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.
