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
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check what they personally maintained: article counts in Confluence or ServiceNow, review cycles enforced, stale content retired, taxonomy and metadata schemas they built and kept current.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Names owned knowledge bases with volumes, review cadences, and archive rules; cites stale-content percentages driven down and kept down.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe redesigns of the content lifecycle: KCS adoption, templates and style guides, search tuning, findability audits, article deflection or self-service resolution rates before and after.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Describes a specific lifecycle or search fix with measured gains in deflection, time-to-find, or contributor participation rates.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Test how they decide what gets published, merged, or killed when subject matter experts disagree, and how they handle sensitive or access-restricted documentation.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Explains concrete arbitration and permissioning calls, including content they refused to publish and the reasoning behind it.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Assess how they recruit contributors and coach engineers or agents who resist writing; look for onboarding sessions, contributor scorecards, and executive reporting on knowledge health.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Shows evidence of turning reluctant experts into regular contributors and reporting knowledge metrics credibly to leadership.
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.
