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
Portfolio
35% weight
Review boards from shipped projects: feature animation, commercials, live action previs. Look for full sequences, not single panels, plus animatics with timing, and credited titles.
Evidence to listen for
Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
States what they made versus what the team or a template made
Shows range rather than one repeated style
Can walk through a piece from brief to final
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.
2
Needs Improvement
Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.
3
Satisfactory
Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.
4
Very Good
Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.
5
Excellent
Shows complete sequences from named productions, including action and dialogue scenes, with animatics cut to scratch audio and director credits.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Probe staging choices: eyeline matches, 180 degree rule, lens implication, screen direction, and how they board a chase versus a two-hander. Ask about Storyboard Pro or TVPaint fluency.
Evidence to listen for
Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
Names the tools they are genuinely fast in
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.
3
Satisfactory
Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.
5
Excellent
Explains camera and cutting decisions in shot terms, draws confident perspective and gesture at speed, and names software workflows including panel export and X-sheets.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Test response to director notes: how they handle a full sequence rewrite the day before the animatic review, and what they keep versus rebuild.
Evidence to listen for
Takes critique without treating it as an attack
Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
Iterates fast rather than defending version one
Delivers files correctly and on time
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Defensive about critique; will not revise.
2
Needs Improvement
Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.
3
Satisfactory
Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.
4
Very Good
Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.
5
Excellent
Describes specific revision rounds, turns notes into alternate staging options quickly, and separates personal preference from what serves the director's intent.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Assess intake from a script page or beat sheet: how they clarify story beats, budget or asset limits, and episode runtime before drawing a panel.
Evidence to listen for
Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
Flags an impossible brief early
Hands over files and assets others can actually use
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.
2
Needs Improvement
Starts designing before understanding the goal.
3
Satisfactory
Asks the right questions when prompted.
4
Very Good
Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.
5
Excellent
Interrogates the script for intent, flags impossible shots against budget or rig limits early, and delivers on episodic deadlines with panel counts agreed upfront.
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.
