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 exploded views, cutaways and illustrated parts catalogues in their portfolio; ask which were built from STEP or SolidWorks data versus drawn from photos and physical teardowns.
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 multi-sheet assembly sequences, IPC figures and wiring schematics, naming the source CAD, the manual they shipped in, and the audience.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and rationale
25% weight
Test line weight hierarchy, callout and leader conventions, view selection and standards command: ASME Y14.5, ATA iSpec 2200, S1000D CGM output, ISO 128 projection choices.
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 why a particular section view, break line or profile weight was chosen, and how vector output stayed legible at print and tablet scale.
03
Evaluation factor
Feedback and iteration
25% weight
Probe how they handle engineering redlines, SME markups and late ECO changes; ask about rework cycles when part geometry or torque sequences changed mid-project.
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 rebuilding illustrations from revised CAD without starting over, using layered source files and version control to absorb repeated engineering changes.
04
Evaluation factor
Working with the brief
15% weight
Assess how they extract intent from incomplete specs: interviewing design engineers, reading assembly procedures, resolving conflicts between the written step and the physical hardware.
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
Questions ambiguous procedures before drawing, flags discrepancies back to engineering, and delivers to publication deadlines within Isodraw, Illustrator or DITA pipelines.
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.
