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
Technical depth
35% weight
Check command of optics and imaging fundamentals: lens selection, telecentric versus entocentric, working distance, pixel-per-mm budgets, strobed versus diffuse lighting, and libraries such as HALCON, VisionPro or OpenCV.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.
5
Excellent
Calculates field of view, resolution and depth of field from first principles, and justifies lighting geometry for specular or low contrast parts.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Probe deployed inspection cells: cycle times hit, false reject and escape rates, GigE or CoaXPress camera counts, PLC handshaking, and how the system held up on a production line.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
States their own scope inside the project
Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
Explains what went wrong and what they changed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.
3
Satisfactory
Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.
4
Very Good
Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.
5
Excellent
Names specific lines or products inspected, quotes measured false reject rates and takt times, and describes what changed after go-live.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test debugging of drifting accuracy: ambient light bleed, part presentation variance, calibration decay, thermal focus shift, or a classifier failing on a new supplier's material batch.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
Distinguishes correlation from cause
Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.
2
Needs Improvement
Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.
5
Excellent
Separates optical, mechanical and algorithmic causes methodically, using logged failure images and gauge studies rather than retraining or tweaking thresholds blindly.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Assess collaboration with controls engineers, line operators and quality teams: writing acceptance criteria, running Gage R&R, and training operators to handle rejects and re-teach parts.
Evidence to listen for
Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
Documents decisions so others can act on them
Takes review feedback without defensiveness
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.
4
Very Good
Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.
5
Excellent
Describes negotiating realistic tolerances with quality, and leaving operators with documentation and HMI tools they actually used unaided.
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.
