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
Ratings and technical competence
30% weight
Check working command of seismic magnitude estimation, DART buoy and tide gauge data, inundation modelling tools such as MOST or ComMIT, and NWS or PTWC/NTWC message formats.
Evidence to listen for
Holds the current ratings, licences, or endorsements the position requires
Knows the rules, minima, and standards cold, not approximately
Familiar with the equipment and airspace, network, or plant in question
Clear on the boundary of their own authority
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Lacks required ratings, or shaky on the standards that keep people alive.
2
Needs Improvement
Holds the ticket but hesitant on rules and minima.
3
Satisfactory
Competent and current; slower on unfamiliar configurations.
4
Very Good
Rules and minima are second nature; strong on the specific environment.
5
Excellent
Reads Mwp and W-phase solutions against sea level confirmation, and names the specific forecast models and bulletin products used.
02
Evaluation factor
Situational awareness under load
30% weight
Probe how they held the picture during a real event: parallel data streams, aftershock sequences, conflicting arrival forecasts, and simultaneous calls from county emergency managers.
Evidence to listen for
Keeps the whole picture while handling one problem
Describes how they shed or reprioritise tasks when volume spikes
Notices the thing that has gone quiet, not just the thing that is loud
Knows their own saturation point and says so before reaching it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Tunnel vision under load; loses the wider picture entirely.
2
Needs Improvement
Copes at normal volume; degrades badly when it spikes.
3
Satisfactory
Holds the picture in most conditions; occasional fixation.
4
Very Good
Maintains awareness under high load and reprioritises deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes a live event minute by minute, tracking data revisions and jurisdiction status while triaging incoming calls without dropping threads.
03
Evaluation factor
Decisions under pressure
25% weight
Test judgement on borderline calls: upgrading watch to warning, cancelling early, handling a distant-source event with uncertain amplitudes, or a false alert requiring retraction.
Evidence to listen for
Decides on incomplete information rather than freezing
Chooses the safe option when uncertain, and can say why
Recovers from their own error without concealing it
Can describe a real event where they made the call
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Freezes, or gambles when the safe option was available.
2
Needs Improvement
Slow to commit; defers decisions that were theirs to make.
3
Satisfactory
Decides adequately in familiar situations.
4
Very Good
Decides quickly and safely, and owns errors openly.
5
Excellent
Explains a defensible call with the thresholds and uncertainty considered, and owns a cancellation or correction decision and its consequences.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication discipline
15% weight
Assess discipline across EAS, WEA, NOAA Weather Radio and siren activation, plus plain language briefings to coastal officials, tribal contacts and media during evacuation.
Evidence to listen for
Uses standard phraseology and readback discipline without shortcuts
Hands over completely, including what is unresolved
Speaks up to someone senior when safety requires it
Stays measured on the loop when the situation is not
Precise phraseology and complete handovers, and will challenge seniority on safety.
5
Excellent
Uses precise, standardised alert wording, confirms receipt down the dissemination chain, and adapts phrasing for public audiences without softening urgency.
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.
