security compliancecrisis managementduty of caresecurity risk managementtravel security
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
Technical depth
35% weight
Check command of security risk assessment methodology: threat and vulnerability matrices, ISO 31000 or GPR8 alignment, journey management plans, MOSS/MORSS compliance, and HEAT or SSAFE facilitation.
Evidence to listen for
Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.
2
Needs Improvement
Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.
5
Excellent
Walks through a real SRA they authored, naming threat categories, likelihood scoring, residual risk, and the mitigations each control produced.
02
Evaluation factor
Real incidents and findings
30% weight
Probe actual incidents managed in-region: hibernation or relocation calls, staff detention, carjacking, kidnap for ransom, or programme suspension, including their role in the crisis management team.
Evidence to listen for
Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
States their own role rather than the team's
Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.
2
Needs Improvement
Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.
3
Satisfactory
Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.
4
Very Good
Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.
5
Excellent
Recounts specific incidents with dates, locations, decision timelines, and what the after action review changed in standing procedures.
03
Evaluation factor
Risk judgement
20% weight
Test how they balance acceptance, protection and deterrence against programme access, and how they set risk thresholds country directors will actually accept rather than blanket restrictions.
Evidence to listen for
Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
Does not cry wolf or wave things through
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.
2
Needs Improvement
Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.
4
Very Good
Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.
5
Excellent
Explains a case where they enabled access others would have blocked, with the specific controls and monitoring triggers that made it defensible.
04
Evaluation factor
Getting things fixed
15% weight
Assess influence without line authority: getting country offices to close audit gaps, budget for guarding contracts, complete training compliance, and update contingency plans on schedule.
Evidence to listen for
Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
Explains risk to executives in business terms
Works with the org rather than policing it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.
2
Needs Improvement
Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.
4
Very Good
Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.
5
Excellent
Cites measurable uptake, for example compliance rising across named country offices, and describes how they handled a director who resisted.
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.
