Interview scorecard template

Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Authenticator interview scorecard

Evaluate Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Authenticator candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so check how they verify a token: contract address on Etherscan, tokenURI resolution, IPFS CID pinning checks, ERC-721 versus ERC-1155 mint records, and reverse. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationblockchain forensicsnft authenticationprovenancesmart contracts
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate walks through a repeatable verification sequence tying contract bytecode, mint transaction, metadata hash and creator wallet to a single provenance chain. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate cites named collections and case volumes, including a specific forgery or spoofed contract they exposed and what happened to the listing. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
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

Method and rigour

35% weight

Check how they verify a token: contract address on Etherscan, tokenURI resolution, IPFS CID pinning checks, ERC-721 versus ERC-1155 mint records, and reverse image searches for copyminting.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Walks through a repeatable verification sequence tying contract bytecode, mint transaction, metadata hash and creator wallet to a single provenance chain.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Probe actual authentication work: collections reviewed for OpenSea, Magic Eden or Rarible, counterfeit listings flagged, wash trading patterns caught, disputed high-value pieces adjudicated.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Cites named collections and case volumes, including a specific forgery or spoofed contract they exposed and what happened to the listing.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Assess judgement in grey areas: derivative art versus plagiarism, delegated minting by studios, burned and re-minted tokens, wrapped assets, and unsigned off-chain metadata edits.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Distinguishes confirmed fraud from ambiguous provenance, states confidence levels, and names the evidence that would change their conclusion.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Look for how findings are documented: authentication reports, evidence screenshots with block heights, escalation notes to trust and safety, and support for chargeback or legal disputes.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Produces reports a non-technical reviewer can act on, with transaction hashes cited and conclusions defensible under challenge from collectors.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Authenticator

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you provide examples of tokens you have authenticated?

  2. 02

    Can you discuss a challenging authentication case and how you resolved it?

  3. 03

    Do you have experience working with both individual artists and larger platforms?

  4. 04

    What steps do you take to verify the provenance of a token?

  5. 05

    How do you confirm that the creator of a token is who they claim to be?

See the complete Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Authenticator question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards