Interview scorecard template

Nuclear Instrumentation & Control Technician interview scorecard

Evaluate Nuclear Instrumentation & Control Technician candidates across 4 weighted areas: hands-on competence, safety discipline, fault finding, and reliability and conduct. Hands-on competence leads at 35%, so check hands-on calibration of safety-related loops: pressure transmitters, RTDs, thermocouples, bistables, using Fluke 754 or similar, plus as-found/as-left data and setpoint drift trending. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
skilled trades technical operationsalaralock out tag outloop calibrationneutron flux detectorsreactor protection system
TL;DR
For hands-on competence, look for evidence the candidate names specific loops and instruments calibrated, quotes tolerance bands, and explains how as-found data fed drift and surveillance records. For safety discipline, look for evidence the candidate describes stopping work over an incorrect clearance boundary and treats independent verification and dose minimisation as routine, not optional. 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

Hands-on competence

35% weight

Check hands-on calibration of safety-related loops: pressure transmitters, RTDs, thermocouples, bistables, using Fluke 754 or similar, plus as-found/as-left data and setpoint drift trending.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the equipment, materials, and tolerances they work to
  • Can describe a job start to finish without hand-waving the hard parts
  • Holds the tickets, licences, or certifications the work requires, and they are current
  • Knows what they are not qualified to touch

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe the work concretely; lacks required tickets or licences.

2
Needs Improvement

Basic familiarity; needs supervision on routine tasks.

3
Satisfactory

Competent on standard work; slower or unsure on unfamiliar jobs.

4
Very Good

Skilled and independent across the normal range of the role.

5
Excellent

Names specific loops and instruments calibrated, quotes tolerance bands, and explains how as-found data fed drift and surveillance records.

02
Evaluation factor

Safety discipline

30% weight

Probe radiological and electrical safety habits: RadWorker II training, ALARA planning, dose tracking, clearance and lock-out tag-out on protection channels, and jumper and lifted-lead control.

Evidence to listen for

  • Treats procedure as protection rather than paperwork
  • Can describe a time they stopped work and why
  • Knows the specific hazards of this trade and the controls for each
  • Reports near misses instead of hiding them

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Casual about safety; describes shortcuts with pride.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows procedure when watched; cannot name the hazards that matter.

3
Satisfactory

Sound safety habits; less certain on unfamiliar hazards.

4
Very Good

Safety is instinctive; can describe stopping work over a real concern.

5
Excellent

Describes stopping work over an incorrect clearance boundary and treats independent verification and dose minimisation as routine, not optional.

03
Evaluation factor

Fault finding

20% weight

Test troubleshooting of spurious trips and channel failures: neutron flux instrumentation, isolation amplifiers, noisy signals, grounding faults, using prints, loop diagrams and signal tracing.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a method for narrowing a fault rather than swapping parts
  • Reads schematics, manuals, or error codes and acts on them
  • Knows when to escalate rather than guess
  • Can describe a fault that took real work to find

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Parts-swapper; no diagnostic method.

2
Needs Improvement

Fixes symptoms; cannot explain how they found the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Solid on familiar faults; less structured on new ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic method with a real hard-fault story.

5
Excellent

Walks a spurious bistable actuation from symptom to root cause, distinguishing sensor, cabling, and card failures with evidence at each step.

04
Evaluation factor

Reliability and conduct

15% weight

Assess work practice discipline: technical specification surveillance deadlines, work order documentation in Passport or Maximo, condition reports written, and shift or outage callout availability.

Evidence to listen for

  • Turns up, on time, prepared
  • Handles shift work, callouts, or travel as the role requires
  • Documents work so the next person can pick it up
  • Deals with customers or site staff professionally

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unreliable attendance; unprofessional on site.

2
Needs Improvement

Inconsistent; documentation is an afterthought.

3
Satisfactory

Dependable; paperwork is adequate.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable, documents well, professional with customers.

5
Excellent

Shows clean surveillance completion history, self-reported own errors through condition reports, and worked full refuelling outages without schedule slippage.

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