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 command
35% weight
Check they can build and defend a project finance model: DSCR sizing, tax equity flip structures, ITC/PTC transferability, merchant tail assumptions, P50/P90 yield inputs and levered IRR.
Evidence to listen for
Commands the instruments, models, or reporting standards the role turns on
Can build the analysis rather than only interpret someone else's
Knows the assumptions inside a model and which ones actually drive the answer
Fluent in the frameworks and disclosure regimes that apply
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the instruments or standards they claim to work with.
2
Needs Improvement
Interprets others' analysis but cannot build or defend it.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working command; thin on unfamiliar structures or standards.
4
Very Good
Builds the analysis and knows which assumptions actually move the answer.
5
Excellent
Names specific model mechanics, cites DSCR covenants and depreciation treatment, and explains how P99 downside cases shaped debt sizing.
02
Evaluation factor
Deals and deliverables that closed
25% weight
Probe closed transactions: MW capacity, debt quantum, sponsor equity raised, PPA or hedge counterparties, lenders involved, and their exact role from term sheet to financial close.
Evidence to listen for
Names transactions, filings, or reports they worked, with size, counterparties, and their own scope
Distinguishes their contribution from the deal team's
Knows what happened afterwards, including what underperformed
Can describe one that fell over and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No completed work; describes process rather than outcomes.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in transactions but cannot state their own scope.
3
Satisfactory
Real deliverables with adequate ownership; outcomes described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named transactions or filings with clear personal scope and honest post-mortems.
5
Excellent
Cites named wind, solar or storage projects with megawatts, financing size, close dates and their personal contribution to each.
03
Evaluation factor
Risk judgement
25% weight
Assess how they price curtailment, basis risk, interconnection queue delays, offtaker credit, EPC contractor insolvency and policy shifts such as IRA guidance changes.
Evidence to listen for
Distinguishes a modelled risk from a real one
States confidence and what would change their view
Comfortable disagreeing with a number that suits everybody
Knows the limits of the data behind a projection, especially over long horizons
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Treats model output as truth; no sense of data limits.
2
Needs Improvement
Reports numbers without qualifying them; avoids unwelcome conclusions.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.
4
Very Good
States confidence unprompted and will hold an unpopular position on evidence.
5
Excellent
Quantifies specific downside scenarios, describes risks they flagged that killed or repriced a deal, and names mitigants actually negotiated.
04
Evaluation factor
Explaining it to decision-makers
15% weight
Test how they present to investment committees, sponsors and lenders: sensitivity tables, waterfall outputs, and translating tax equity mechanics for non-specialist boards.
Evidence to listen for
Explains a technical position to an investment committee, board, or regulator so they can act on it
Writes to the standard the audience is held to
Handles challenge without either caving or digging in
Works across legal, operations, and external counterparties
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate beyond technical peers.
2
Needs Improvement
Explanations lose the audience or oversimplify to the point of error.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate with familiar audiences; less effective under challenge.
4
Very Good
Explains clearly to committees and regulators and holds up under challenge.
5
Excellent
Reduces complex structures to two or three decision drivers, and recalls a recommendation an IC or board acted on.
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.
