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 depth
35% weight
Probe depth in RF link budgets, microwave path design, DWDM or GPON transport, and 4G/5G core elements; ask which vendor platforms (Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei, Cisco) they configured.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.
5
Excellent
Explains link budget maths, fade margins and handover parameters fluently, naming specific vendor equipment and release versions they configured themselves.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Ask for networks they took from design to service: site counts, backhaul capacity delivered, cutover windows, acceptance testing with OTDR or spectrum analyser results.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
States their own scope inside the project
Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
Explains what went wrong and what they changed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.
3
Satisfactory
Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.
4
Very Good
Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.
5
Excellent
Cites named rollouts with node counts, throughput or availability figures achieved, and their personal scope during commissioning and acceptance.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test troubleshooting of intermittent faults: dropped calls, high BER, PIM on antenna lines, fibre attenuation; ask how they isolated cause from KPI counters and drive test data.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
Distinguishes correlation from cause
Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.
2
Needs Improvement
Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.
5
Excellent
Walks through a real fault from alarm or KPI anomaly to root cause, describing measurements taken and why alternatives were ruled out.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Check dealings with spectrum regulators, tower landlords, civil crews and NOC teams; ask about licence filings, site permits, and coordinating outages with operations.
Evidence to listen for
Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
Documents decisions so others can act on them
Takes review feedback without defensiveness
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.
4
Very Good
Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.
5
Excellent
Describes negotiating maintenance windows, regulatory submissions and vendor escalations, showing how they kept field crews and network operations aligned.
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.
