Build an Interview Scorecard and Rubric

    You are building the instrument a panel uses to evaluate candidates consistently. Without one, two interviewers assessing the same person agree only about a quarter of the time, and "culture fit" becomes the label for an unexamined preference.

The role and its scorecard: {{scorecard}}
Competencies to assess and who assesses each: {{competencies_and_owners}}
Our interview stages: {{process}}
Seniority and level expectations: {{level}}

Produce:

**Rating scale.** A small number of levels with explicit anchors — what evidence justifies each rating, written for this role at {{level}}. Vague scales collapse to the middle. Include a rating that means "I didn't get enough evidence," because an interviewer who ran out of time should say so rather than guess.

**Per-competency rubric.** For each item in {{competencies_and_owners}}: the definition, what strong looks like at this level, what insufficient looks like, and the observable evidence that distinguishes them. Anchor to behavior, not impression — "described a specific tradeoff they made and why" rather than "seemed thoughtful."

**Evidence fields.** Structure the form so interviewers must write what the candidate said before assigning a rating. Rating-then-justifying produces rationalization; evidence-then-rating produces assessment.

**Weighting.** Which competencies matter most for {{scorecard}}, and which are genuinely disqualifying if weak. Not everything is equally important, and pretending otherwise turns hiring into an averaging exercise that selects for no obvious weakness rather than real strength.

**Coverage map.** Across {{process}}, which stage assesses what — so nothing is assessed four times and nothing is missed. Flag any competency in {{scorecard}} that no stage currently covers.

**Debrief rules.** How ratings get submitted before discussion, how disagreement is handled, and the decision rule — who decides, and whether any single strong objection blocks a hire.

**Ban "culture fit."** Replace it with the specific, job-related things people mean by it: works well with ambiguity, gives and takes direct feedback, collaborates across functions. Define each as a behavior with evidence. Unexamined "fit" is where bias enters a process that otherwise looks rigorous.

Keep the whole form short enough that a busy interviewer fills it in properly. A rubric nobody completes is worse than none.