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
Technique and experimental design
35% weight
Probe scaffold and culture technique: electrospinning or bioprinting parameters, GelMA or decellularized ECM crosslinking, perfusion bioreactor setup, iPSC or hMSC differentiation protocols, and how they design seeding density studies.
Evidence to listen for
Runs the assays and instruments themselves rather than describing what a team does
Designs experiments with controls, replicates, and a stated hypothesis
Knows what each technique can and cannot resolve
Understands the science, not only the protocol
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Protocol follower with no experimental design; cannot justify controls.
2
Needs Improvement
Runs standard assays; designs experiments poorly or not at all.
3
Satisfactory
Competent at the bench with sound routine design.
4
Very Good
Designs rigorous experiments and understands the limits of each technique.
5
Excellent
Names specific scaffold chemistries and print or spin parameters, and justifies seeding density, media, and control arms with a defensible design.
02
Evaluation factor
Results that went somewhere
25% weight
Ask which constructs moved past the bench: implanted grafts, animal study data, ISO 10993 biocompatibility packages, publications, patents, or a transfer into GMP cleanroom manufacture.
Evidence to listen for
Names projects where their results changed a decision, a process, or a product
States their own contribution rather than the group's
Has taken something from bench to a larger scale, a filing, or a publication
Knows what happened to the work after they handed it over
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No results that went anywhere; work is entirely exploratory.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what their data changed.
3
Satisfactory
Real contributions; outcomes described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names results that changed a decision, with clear personal scope.
5
Excellent
Points to a named construct that reached in vivo testing, regulatory submission, or scale-up, with their specific contribution clear.
03
Evaluation factor
Troubleshooting and reproducibility
25% weight
Test failure diagnosis: contaminated or mycoplasma-positive lines, necrotic construct cores, batch-to-batch collagen variability, clogged nozzles, or viability assays that contradict histology.
Evidence to listen for
Treats a failed run as information rather than bad luck
Isolates reagent, instrument, operator, and biological causes systematically
Knows why a result failed to reproduce and can say when their own data was wrong
Keeps records good enough to diagnose from months later
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Repeats failed runs unchanged; no diagnostic thinking.
2
Needs Improvement
Troubleshoots by substitution; cannot explain a reproducibility failure.
3
Satisfactory
Solid troubleshooting on familiar assays.
4
Very Good
Systematic isolation of causes, and honest about their own irreproducible results.
5
Excellent
Walks through an isolated root cause, describes the fix, and shows the reproducibility check across passages, batches, or donors.
04
Evaluation factor
Documentation and collaboration
15% weight
Look for electronic lab notebook and SOP discipline, cell banking and passage records, and evidence of working with surgeons, QA, or polymer chemists on shared timelines.
Evidence to listen for
Keeps records to the standard the setting requires, whether that is GLP, GMP, or a defensible notebook
Writes up so someone else can repeat the work
Works with process, quality, or clinical colleagues rather than in a bench silo
Explains a result to a non-specialist without overclaiming
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Records would not survive audit; work is not repeatable from them.
2
Needs Improvement
Documentation is thin; write-ups need heavy editing.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate records and write-ups; collaboration is limited.
4
Very Good
Audit-standard records and clear communication across functions.
5
Excellent
Keeps traceable batch and passage records others reproduce from, and describes concrete handoffs with clinical or quality colleagues.
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.
