Interview scorecard template

Post-Quantum Cryptography Researcher interview scorecard

Evaluate Post-Quantum Cryptography Researcher candidates across 4 weighted areas: theoretical command, from theory to hardware or code, research judgement, and explaining it to non-specialists. Theoretical command leads at 35%, so check command of lattice, code, isogeny and hash-based constructions: ask them to compare Module-LWE hardness assumptions in ML-KEM against SIKE's collapse. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
frontier research deep techcryptanalysislattice cryptographynist pqcpost quantum
TL;DR
For theoretical command, look for evidence the candidate discusses concrete security estimates, core-SVP hardness, and known attack advances with precise reference to the underlying assumptions. For from theory to hardware or code, look for evidence the candidate names merged code, benchmarks on specific targets (Cortex-M4, AVX2), and explains how timing leakage was eliminated and verified. 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

Theoretical command

35% weight

Check command of lattice, code, isogeny and hash-based constructions: ask them to compare Module-LWE hardness assumptions in ML-KEM against SIKE's collapse and Falcon's trapdoor sampling.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains the underlying theory at the level the role demands, and can go a layer deeper when pushed
  • Knows which results are established and which are contested
  • Distinguishes their own contribution from the field's
  • Comfortable saying where the theory runs out

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Recites terminology without understanding; cannot go one layer deeper.

2
Needs Improvement

Surface familiarity; conflates established results with speculation.

3
Satisfactory

Solid grasp of the core theory; thin at the frontier.

4
Very Good

Strong command; separates settled results from open questions.

5
Excellent

Discusses concrete security estimates, core-SVP hardness, and known attack advances with precise reference to the underlying assumptions.

02
Evaluation factor

From theory to hardware or code

30% weight

Probe implementations they wrote: constant-time NTT in C or Rust, liboqs or PQClean contributions, hardware accelerators, side-channel countermeasures, and measured cycle counts or FPGA area.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has built, simulated, or run something real, not only published about it
  • Knows the gap between the idealised model and the actual apparatus or system
  • Names the practical constraint that dominates in real conditions
  • Can describe a result that did not match prediction

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Purely theoretical; no contact with implementation.

2
Needs Improvement

Some exposure but unaware of practical constraints.

3
Satisfactory

Has implemented work; understands the main real-world limits.

4
Very Good

Strong practical record; articulate about theory-versus-reality gaps.

5
Excellent

Names merged code, benchmarks on specific targets (Cortex-M4, AVX2), and explains how timing leakage was eliminated and verified.

03
Evaluation factor

Research judgement

20% weight

Test how they choose problems: why pursue a given cryptanalytic direction, when to abandon a scheme, how they set parameters against uncertain quantum resource estimates.

Evidence to listen for

  • Chooses problems by tractability and value, not novelty alone
  • Knows when to abandon a line of work
  • Reads and evaluates others' results critically
  • Can say what would falsify their own approach

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Chases novelty; no sense of tractability or when to stop.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak problem selection; persists past the point of value.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement within a defined programme.

4
Very Good

Selects problems well and knows when to abandon a line.

5
Excellent

Describes an abandoned or pivoted line of research with the evidence that triggered it, plus deliberate conservatism in parameter choices.

04
Evaluation factor

Explaining it to non-specialists

15% weight

Assess how they brief CISOs or standards committees on migration: crypto-agility, harvest-now-decrypt-later risk, hybrid TLS deployment, and NIST or CNSA 2.0 timelines.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains the work to an engineer, an executive, or a funder without either mystifying or dumbing it down
  • Writes clearly
  • Collaborates across disciplines
  • Makes the case for resources in terms the audience cares about

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate outside their specialism.

2
Needs Improvement

Explanation is either impenetrable or hollow.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate with technical peers; less effective with lay audiences.

4
Very Good

Explains clearly to specialists and non-specialists alike.

5
Excellent

Translates hardness assumptions into migration decisions non-cryptographers act on, without overselling or hand-waving residual uncertainty.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Post-Quantum Cryptography Researcher

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

  1. 01

    Can you discuss a recent paper or project you worked on in this area?

  2. 02

    Which quantum-resistant algorithms have you worked with directly?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a time when you collaborated with other researchers?

  4. 04

    Describe your experience with lattice-based constructions.

  5. 05

    Describe your experience with code-based constructions.

See the complete Post-Quantum Cryptography Researcher 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