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
Hands-on competence
35% weight
Check hands-on work with specific platforms: FANUC, ABB or KUKA teach pendants, servo motor and harmonic drive replacement, encoder mastering, end effector alignment, and PLC I/O checks.
Evidence to listen for
Names the equipment, materials, and tolerances they work to
Can describe a job start to finish without hand-waving the hard parts
Holds the tickets, licences, or certifications the work requires, and they are current
Knows what they are not qualified to touch
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe the work concretely; lacks required tickets or licences.
2
Needs Improvement
Basic familiarity; needs supervision on routine tasks.
3
Satisfactory
Competent on standard work; slower or unsure on unfamiliar jobs.
4
Very Good
Skilled and independent across the normal range of the role.
5
Excellent
Names controller families worked on, describes mastering a six-axis arm after gearbox swap, and cites tolerances held during tooling alignment.
02
Evaluation factor
Safety discipline
30% weight
Probe lockout/tagout practice around robot cells, light curtain and safety mat verification, dual-channel E-stop testing, and how they enter a cell during teach mode at reduced speed.
Evidence to listen for
Treats procedure as protection rather than paperwork
Can describe a time they stopped work and why
Knows the specific hazards of this trade and the controls for each
Reports near misses instead of hiding them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Casual about safety; describes shortcuts with pride.
2
Needs Improvement
Follows procedure when watched; cannot name the hazards that matter.
3
Satisfactory
Sound safety habits; less certain on unfamiliar hazards.
4
Very Good
Safety is instinctive; can describe stopping work over a real concern.
5
Excellent
Treats cell entry as a procedure: verifies energy isolation, keeps sole key control, and has refused to bypass an interlock under production pressure.
03
Evaluation factor
Fault finding
20% weight
Test diagnosis of intermittent faults: repeated position errors, overtravel alarms, drifting vision pick accuracy, pneumatic gripper leaks. Ask how they read fault logs and isolate mechanical versus controls causes.
Evidence to listen for
Has a method for narrowing a fault rather than swapping parts
Reads schematics, manuals, or error codes and acts on them
Knows when to escalate rather than guess
Can describe a fault that took real work to find
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Parts-swapper; no diagnostic method.
2
Needs Improvement
Fixes symptoms; cannot explain how they found the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Solid on familiar faults; less structured on new ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic method with a real hard-fault story.
5
Excellent
Walks an actual alarm code to root cause, distinguishes worn linear bearing from tuning issue, and explains what proved the fix stuck.
04
Evaluation factor
Reliability and conduct
15% weight
Assess shift conduct on a running line: response time to downtime calls, CMMS work order and PM record keeping, spare parts discipline, and handover notes to the next shift.
Evidence to listen for
Turns up, on time, prepared
Handles shift work, callouts, or travel as the role requires
Documents work so the next person can pick it up
Deals with customers or site staff professionally
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unreliable attendance; unprofessional on site.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent; documentation is an afterthought.
3
Satisfactory
Dependable; paperwork is adequate.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable, documents well, professional with customers.
5
Excellent
Cites downtime or MTTR figures they improved, logs work in the CMMS consistently, and is trusted on off-hours callouts and startups.
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.
