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 programming and commissioning depth: Crestron SIMPL or C#, Control4 Composer, KNX ETS, Lutron QSX, Q-SYS Designer, Dante audio routing, and rack terminations they built themselves.
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 specific control platforms they program and commission, describes rack builds, load schedules, and scene tuning done on live sites.
02
Evaluation factor
Safety discipline
30% weight
Probe low-voltage and mains safety practice: separation of Cat6A from mains runs, lockout on lighting circuits, working at height in ceiling voids, and any 18th Edition or site induction cards held.
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
Cites certification held, describes isolation before touching dimmer panels, and treats cable segregation and RAMS paperwork as routine, not optional.
03
Evaluation factor
Fault finding
20% weight
Test diagnostic method on flaky systems: dropped Zigbee or Z-Wave mesh nodes, KNX bus telegram storms, HDMI EDID and HDCP handshake failures, or BACnet points that stopped reporting.
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 a fault from symptom to root cause using bus monitors, packet capture, or signal test gear rather than swapping boxes at random.
04
Evaluation factor
Reliability and conduct
15% weight
Assess conduct on occupied client sites: handover training given to end users, as-built documentation and IP schedules left behind, snag list closure, and response on remote support callouts.
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
Describes documented handovers, tidy finished rooms, and repeat clients or integrators who request them by name for follow-on phases.
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.
