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
Body of work
35% weight
Ask which shipped titles they wrote for, the systems they owned (main quests, companion arcs, barks, codex), and word counts or branch volume delivered.
Evidence to listen for
Has work that exists publicly and can be checked
States what they made versus what they contributed to
Can talk about range as well as their signature style
Knows how the work was received and by whom
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Nothing finished or public; describes intentions rather than output.
2
Needs Improvement
Small or unverifiable body of work; unclear personal contribution.
3
Satisfactory
Real output with adequate range; reception described vaguely.
4
Very Good
Substantial verifiable work with clear ownership and range.
5
Excellent
Names shipped games and the specific quests, characters or bark systems they authored, with scope figures and links to playable evidence.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Probe their handling of branching structure in Ink, Twine, articy:draft or a proprietary node editor, plus flag logic, state tracking and player agency versus authored beats.
Evidence to listen for
Can discuss technique concretely rather than in terms of feel or vibe
Names influences and what they took from each
Explains a deliberate choice and the effect it was for
Knows their own weak areas and what they do about them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No technical vocabulary; cannot discuss choices behind the work.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in generalities; choices sound accidental.
3
Satisfactory
Solid craft with some ability to explain decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about technique and deliberate about effect.
5
Excellent
Discusses branch pruning, variable state and reconvergence concretely, and shows how narrative served level pacing and mechanics rather than fighting them.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Check how they hit VO recording lock, localisation freeze and cert milestones, and how they tracked lines through Perforce, Jira and a dialogue database.
Evidence to listen for
Meets deadlines and briefs, with evidence
Handles revisions and direction without ego
Describes how they work when the brief is vague or changes late
Has repeat clients, bookings, or collaborators
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Misses commitments; cannot take direction.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent delivery; defensive about revisions.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on clear briefs; struggles when direction shifts.
4
Very Good
Consistently delivers and adapts; repeat collaborators.
5
Excellent
Describes writing to hard line budgets and lock dates, versioning cleanly, and flagging loc or VO risk weeks before the session.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Explore how they pitch story beats to creative directors, defend cuts in narrative review, and respond to playtest telemetry showing players skipping dialogue.
Evidence to listen for
Comfortable performing or presenting on demand, including cold
Reads a room and adjusts
Handles a bad night, a difficult client, or a hostile crowd without unravelling
Represents the employer well in front of others
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot perform or present on request; unravels under pressure.
2
Needs Improvement
Rigid delivery; no read of the room.
3
Satisfactory
Competent in familiar settings; less adaptable in new ones.
4
Very Good
Strong presence and adapts to the room.
5
Excellent
Pitches vividly, takes a cut without ego, and cites playtest or telemetry evidence when arguing for or against a narrative beat.
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.
