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 episodes they cut or produced, even student or hobby shows: RSS feed links, download numbers, guest bookings handled, and which segments they personally edited.
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
Points to published episodes with named role, shares feed or Spotify links, and describes edits they made shot by shot.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Test working knowledge of Descript, Audition, Reaper or Hindenburg: noise reduction, loudness targets near -16 LUFS, multitrack sync, and removing filler without audible seams.
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
Names their editing chain, explains loudness normalisation and de-essing choices, and can defend why a cut sounds clean.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Probe how they track release schedules: episode trackers, guest prep docs, transcript turnaround, show notes with timestamps, and what they did when a recording arrived corrupted.
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 weekly pipeline with backups, double-recording habits, and clear deadlines they met without reminders.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Judge how they handle guests on a call: pre-interview briefing, mic and Riverside setup coaching, and keeping nervous speakers talking without dominating.
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
Shows calm guest-side manner, gives concrete examples of coaching mic technique, and reads when to prompt versus stay silent.
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.
