Candidate Interview Scorecard Template

An interview scorecard is a post-interview evaluation record for job-related evidence, unknowns and a human-owned next action. It is not an interview plan, transcript or general impression.

Keep it separate from a structured interview guide, which sets the process, stages, owners and common questions. An interview notes template captures raw observations while a conversation is fresh. This scorecard is the considered evaluation after the interview: what evidence supports, what remains unknown and what the reviewer recommends.

Set the record up first

Start with the approved role brief, version and interview stage. List only work-related criteria. For each, agree what evidence could support it and what an acceptable adjacent example looks like. Freeze the definitions before review. If the role or evidence standard changes, create a new version with the reason; do not edit an old scorecard.

Use four qualitative statuses: supported, adjacent, unknown or contradicted. Supported means relevant context, the candidate's actions and an observable result. Adjacent means a related route may transfer, but needs checking. Unknown means the interview did not establish the point, not a negative finding. Contradicted means reliable information conflicts and needs review. These are team-defined anchors, not predictive. Avoid numbers or a total formula that suggests false precision.

Copyable scorecard template

Copy one criterion block for each requirement. Keep evidence and interpretation distinct, and write enough source detail for another reviewer to understand the decision without reading a full transcript.

CANDIDATE AND REVIEW
Candidate name or internal ID:
Role / interview stage / interview date:
Approved brief version / scorecard version:
Reviewer / review completed:

CRITERION 1
Criterion and type (must-have, nice-to-have or boundary):
Question asked:
Evidence anchor:
- Supported: [observable behaviour, scope, personal contribution and result]
- Adjacent: [related evidence plus the capability or context to verify]
- Unknown: [what the interview did not establish]
- Contradicted: [conflicting evidence, source and check needed]
Evidence / quote or observation:
Reviewer interpretation and status:
Unknowns or verification question:
Next step / owner / due date:

REVIEW SUMMARY
Criteria not assessed:
Material disagreement to take to calibration:
Overall job-related recommendation (progress, verify, hold, revise or close):
Reason and evidence reference:
Decision owner / decision date:
Change log or new version required:

Record evidence, not impressions

Write a concise observation or short exact quote, noting context, scope and personal contribution. An answer may describe a rollback decision, its constraint and the result. Do not turn that into a personality label such as "natural leader" or "not a team player". A polished answer, accent, school, employer name or conversational style is not evidence of capability.

If the question was not asked, the answer was vague or time ran out, mark the criterion unknown. Write a verification question and offer the same opportunity to comparable candidates. A reasonable adjustment or alternative format can keep the same criterion and anchor; record the process change. This is general process context, not legal advice.

Complete it independently

Each reviewer should finish before reading another recommendation or joining discussion. Independent completion preserves original reasoning. Wording need not match: cite the question, evidence and interpretation observed.

Submit by a defined deadline, then give the decision owner the versioned set. Keep records limited to job-decision information. Exclude protected or sensitive traits, health or family details, personality guesses and irrelevant proxies. A missing answer or detail is unknown unless reliable evidence establishes otherwise.

Calibrate by criterion

During calibration, compare evidence before recommendations. Ask each reviewer to point to the criterion, question and observation behind a disagreement. Classify it as a definition problem, evidence gap, adjacent route, factual conflict or operating boundary. Resolve it with the anchor, follow-up or a documented role-owner decision. Do not average judgements into a pseudo-precise total.

Record unresolved disagreement rather than forcing consensus. A reviewer can recommend progress, verify, hold, revise or close, but the decision owner owns the disposition. If a criterion, question or anchor changes after seeing one candidate, create a new version and reassess comparable candidates. Keep the old record and reason.

Fictional filled example

The following is a fictional example for demonstrating the fields only. It is not validated research, a performance prediction or a market benchmark. The observation is intentionally concise and does not represent a real candidate.

FICTIONAL EXAMPLE - not validated research or a market benchmark
Candidate: Fictional Alex R. | Role: product engineer | Stage: work discussion
Brief / scorecard version: v2 / v2 | Reviewer: fictional hiring manager
Criterion: explain technical trade-offs to customers | must-have
Question: Describe a time customer evidence changed a technical plan.
Evidence anchor: Supported requires context, personal decision and observable consequence.
Evidence / observation: Fictional Alex described comparing two implementation options,
the customer constraint considered, and the decision communicated to the team.
Status: Supported, with deployment ownership still unknown.
Unknowns: Ask who monitored the change after release and what Alex personally owned.
Next step: Verify in the next interview | owner: fictional engineering lead | due: [date]

Where Talent Summoner fits

Talent Summoner is our product for upstream candidate sourcing and ranking, not live interview scoring. Its candidate-sourcing workflow starts from a role brief and searches LinkedIn, GitHub and other public professional sources across 200M+ profiles, returning a ranked shortlist with must-haves, nice-to-haves and plain-English reasoning. Its candidate-ranking tool organises an existing CV set. Humans interview, complete this scorecard, verify and decide.

Talent Summoner does not provide live interview scoring, notetaking, recording or transcription. It is not an ATS and does not automatically reject candidates. Review pricing only for the upstream sourcing or ranking work your team has approved.

Wrong fit for this template

Do not use this record as an interview script, raw note dump, personality test, automatic rejection rule or legal assessment. It is a poor fit when criteria are unapproved, interviewers cannot provide job-related evidence, or nobody owns calibration and the final decision. Fix process and ownership first.

FAQ

Copy for one role. Complete reviews independently, then calibrate. Assign an owner and due date for each unknown before the final human-owned step.

Talent Summoner product facts read from our live candidate sourcing, candidate ranking and pricing pages, verified 19 August 2026. We re-verify this page quarterly — tell us if something changed.