frontier research deep techbb84 decoy stateoptical link budgetquantum key distributionsatellite ground station
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 BB84 and decoy-state protocols, entanglement-based E91 links, finite-key security bounds, QBER thresholds, and how they treat side-channel assumptions in device-dependent QKD.
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
Explains decoy-state parameter choice and finite-key secret rate limits fluently, and names the side-channel attacks their threat model excludes.
02
Evaluation factor
From theory to hardware or code
30% weight
Probe hardware they have actually operated: SNSPD or InGaAs detectors, acquisition and tracking pointing systems, ground station telescopes, time-tagging electronics, and post-processing stacks for sifting and privacy amplification.
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 specific missions or testbeds (Micius-class, ESA SAGA, fibre trusted-node links) with measured secret key rates per pass.
03
Evaluation factor
Research judgement
20% weight
Assess how they set link budgets, choose downlink wavelengths, plan pass scheduling around cloud cover and moonlight, and decide when a demonstrator is ready for operational service.
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
Shows numeric reasoning on loss budgets and background counts, and describes an experiment or orbit they cancelled with justification.
04
Evaluation factor
Explaining it to non-specialists
15% weight
Test how they brief telecom operators, national security customers, and regulators on why QKD adds value beyond post-quantum cryptography, including honest limits and trusted-node caveats.
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
Frames key rate and availability in customer terms, concedes PQC overlap candidly, and cites briefings to non-physicist procurement boards.
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.
