creative performanceafter effectspremiere proshort form contentvideo editing
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
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 for links to edited pieces: YouTube cuts, Reels, event recaps, client promos. Check whether they held the edit chair or only assisted on set.
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
Shows three or more finished videos they cut end to end, naming their exact role and the brief behind each piece.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Probe hands-on fluency in Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve, After Effects titling, LUT and colour correction, audio cleanup, plus proxy workflows and export presets per platform.
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
Names specific timeline habits: nested sequences, keyframed audio ducking, 9:16 reframing, and correct H.264 bitrate choices for each channel.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Test file discipline and turnaround: folder structures, backup of camera cards, version naming, revision rounds tracked in Frame.io or Google Drive, and deadline history.
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 a repeatable ingest and naming convention, tracks client notes by version, and cites deliveries made under same-day deadlines.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Look for comfort on shoots: interviewing subjects, directing non-actors, running a lav mic and monitor check, and taking direction from a producer on location.
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
Recounts on-location work where they put a nervous subject at ease, framed the interview, and confirmed audio levels before rolling.
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.
