Interview scorecard template

Product Sound Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Product Sound Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for a reel of shipped product sounds: notification tones, onboarding stingers, error states, haptic pairings. Check they name the platform and where each cue lives. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationaudio brandinghapticssound designui audiowwise reaper
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate plays specific shipped cues on real devices, explains the interaction each one marks, and names ship dates plus platform constraints. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate describes exact signal chain and why, hitting perceived loudness and frequency choices that survive tiny phone speakers and noisy rooms. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for a reel of shipped product sounds: notification tones, onboarding stingers, error states, haptic pairings. Check they name the platform and where each cue lives in the flow.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Plays specific shipped cues on real devices, explains the interaction each one marks, and names ship dates plus platform constraints.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe synthesis and editing chops: Reaper or Pro Tools sessions, Serum or Massive patches, foley capture, loudness targets, sample rate and bit depth decisions for 200ms assets.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Describes exact signal chain and why, hitting perceived loudness and frequency choices that survive tiny phone speakers and noisy rooms.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Explore how they handled critique from PMs and accessibility reviewers: A/B tests on tone preference, annoyance and repeat-listen fatigue, versions cut after user research.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites a cue redesigned across several rounds using research data, and states plainly which of their favourite ideas got killed.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Look for fluency with engineering handoff: asset naming conventions, Wwise or FMOD or native AVAudioEngine integration, file size budgets, spec docs, brand sonic guidelines they authored.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Delivers to a documented spec, anticipates implementation limits, and turns a vague brand brief into a defensible sonic system.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Product Sound Designer

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

  1. 01

    What kinds of products have you designed sound for?

  2. 02

    Can you provide examples of your past product sound design work?

  3. 03

    Have you created sound effects for an application or a game?

  4. 04

    Can you elaborate on your experience with audio production software?

  5. 05

    Which audio editing tools are you most proficient in, and why?

See the complete Product Sound Designer 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