Interview scorecard template

WiFi 6/6E Network Engineer interview scorecard

Evaluate WiFi 6/6E Network Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check command of 802.11ax mechanics: OFDMA resource units, MU-MIMO, BSS coloring, target wake time, 6GHz AFC and PSC channels, plus WPA3 and 802.1X. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
engineering applied scienceekahau surveysrf designwifi 6ewireless lan
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains OFDMA scheduling and 6GHz PSC channel planning precisely, and names where WPA3-Enterprise transition mode breaks older clients. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate cites specific rollouts with AP counts, measured cell edge and SNR targets, and validation surveys proving the design met them. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
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

Technical depth

35% weight

Check command of 802.11ax mechanics: OFDMA resource units, MU-MIMO, BSS coloring, target wake time, 6GHz AFC and PSC channels, plus WPA3 and 802.1X supplicant behaviour.

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 OFDMA scheduling and 6GHz PSC channel planning precisely, and names where WPA3-Enterprise transition mode breaks older clients.

02
Evaluation factor

Work that shipped

30% weight

Ask for named deployments: site counts, AP models (Catalyst 9166, Aruba 630, Mist AP45), predictive surveys in Ekahau, and post-install validation 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 specific rollouts with AP counts, measured cell edge and SNR targets, and validation surveys proving the design met them.

03
Evaluation factor

Diagnosis under uncertainty

20% weight

Probe how they isolated sticky clients, roaming failures or airtime starvation using packet captures, spectrum analysers, WLC RF dashboards and client telemetry rather than guesswork.

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 roaming or interference fault, showing the capture evidence and the change that measurably fixed it.

04
Evaluation factor

Working across the org

15% weight

Assess how they negotiate with facilities on cabling and mounting, brief security on 6GHz policy, and set client expectations when high density demands more APs and budget.

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 translating RF constraints into plain trade-offs that won budget or design approval from facilities, security and application owners.

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.

Explore AI Scorecards