Interview scorecard template

Wireless Charging Engineer interview scorecard

Evaluate Wireless Charging 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 resonant inductive coupling: coil and ferrite geometry, coupling coefficient targets, compensation topology (series-series, LCC), inverter design, and Qi2 MPP or SAE. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
engineering applied sciencecoil and ferrite designemc and fodqi2 wpcresonant power transfer
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains coil turns, litz selection and shielding choices with measured k, Q and DC-to-DC efficiency numbers, not just standard names. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names production programs with certified power class, thermal derating profile and yield or field return data they personally owned. 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 resonant inductive coupling: coil and ferrite geometry, coupling coefficient targets, compensation topology (series-series, LCC), inverter design, and Qi2 MPP or SAE J2954 clauses.

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 coil turns, litz selection and shielding choices with measured k, Q and DC-to-DC efficiency numbers, not just standard names.

02
Evaluation factor

Work that shipped

30% weight

Probe shipped transmitters or receivers: WPC certification passed at an ATL, PTx/PRx controller used (TI bq501xx, NXP, STWBC), EPP wattage, unit volumes.

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

Names production programs with certified power class, thermal derating profile and yield or field return data they personally owned.

03
Evaluation factor

Diagnosis under uncertainty

20% weight

Test debugging of foreign object detection false trips, in-band ASK/FSK comms dropouts, NFC coexistence, CISPR 11 radiated failures and hotspot thermal runaway.

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 specific failure with instrumentation used (network analyzer, thermal camera, power loss accounting) and the root cause found.

04
Evaluation factor

Working across the org

15% weight

Assess collaboration with mechanical on Z-gap and magnet stackup, with EMC labs, with silicon vendors on firmware, and with the WPC compliance path.

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 negotiating coil placement or gap budget against industrial design constraints and driving vendor firmware fixes to closure.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Wireless Charging Engineer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Have you taken a wireless charging project from concept through to a finished product?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a project where you developed or improved this technology?

  3. 03

    Have you worked with inductive or resonant close-proximity charging?

  4. 04

    What is your expertise in electromagnetic fields and related principles?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience with the common power electronic topologies?

See the complete Wireless Charging Engineer question set
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