finance riskblended financedue diligenceimpact investingiris plus
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 command
35% weight
Check command of impact measurement and financial structuring: IRIS+ metric selection, theory of change logic, IFC Operating Principles verification, concessionary versus market-rate return modelling, and DCF or venture debt structures.
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
Maps specific IRIS+ indicators to portfolio theses and defends blended structures, first-loss tranches and return floors with live numbers.
02
Evaluation factor
Deals and deliverables that closed
25% weight
Probe closed transactions: ticket sizes, instrument used (convertible note, mezzanine debt, revenue share), sectors such as smallholder agriculture or off-grid energy, and co-investors including DFIs or foundations.
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
Names deals with amounts, instruments, co-investors and both financial exits and verified impact outcomes at portfolio companies.
03
Evaluation factor
Risk judgement
25% weight
Assess how they weigh impact washing, mission drift at exit, currency and political risk in frontier markets, and thin secondary markets during diligence and reserve decisions.
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
Cites a deal they declined or restructured, showing where impact claims failed diligence or exit terms threatened the mission lock.
04
Evaluation factor
Explaining it to decision-makers
15% weight
Test how they present to investment committees and LPs: IC memos, annual impact reports aligned to GIIN or SDG frameworks, and trade-offs between return and additionality.
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
Explains additionality and counterfactual reasoning plainly, and has walked skeptical trustees or LPs through a mixed financial and impact result.
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.
