Technical interview scorecard / Axiom Cortex
Make every score explain itself.
A useful technical interview scorecard links each role criterion to a question, the expected evidence, and the candidate’s actual answer. Record what was supported, what remains unknown, and which follow-up would resolve the gap. Keep untested criteria separate from demonstrated weaknesses, and review the source before making a decision.
We use science to align tomorrow’s IT talent with the work ahead.
Define the work first.
Start with the decisions the engineer will own. If your notes are messy, check the source before scoring. Connect each must-have to a question and the evidence a strong answer should show. An ideal answer is a set of relevant criteria, not a script to repeat.
Role criterion
A job-relevant requirement, such as designing recoverable services.
Expected evidence
Mechanisms, constraints, tradeoffs, and checks that address that requirement.
Fair opportunity
A question and follow-up that gave the candidate room to show the evidence.
One finding, from source to follow-up.
Synthetic system-design example. It demonstrates the review structure; no candidate evaluation engine ran and no numerical score is claimed.
| Field | Illustrative entry |
|---|---|
| Role criterion | Designs resilient services and explains recovery tradeoffs. |
| Question | How would you handle failure in a distributed service? |
| Expected evidence | Failure isolation, bounded retries, observability, and a recovery tradeoff. |
| Candidate excerpt | “We isolated the worker, bounded the retries, and watched queue depth. I added backpressure when downstream storage slowed.” |
| Source reference | Synthetic transcript, Q3, 19:12; candidate speaker. |
| Opportunity | Valid opportunity for the broad question; recovery tradeoff needs a follow-up. |
| Support | Partially supported. Mechanisms and ownership are stated; recovery tradeoff remains unresolved. |
| Follow-up | When would you stop retrying, and what would that choice mean for users? |
| Reviewer action | Inspect the source, ask the follow-up, and update the finding. |
A gap is not a contradiction.
Supported
The supplied interview contains relevant evidence for the criterion.
Partially supported
The evidence addresses part of the criterion but leaves material elements unresolved.
Contradicted
The candidate explicitly provides evidence that conflicts with the criterion.
Not observed
The supplied interview does not contain enough relevant evidence for the criterion.
Not evaluable
The source, attribution, opportunity, or transcript quality cannot support a responsible determination.
Keep opportunity and ownership beside support. An unasked question is an assessment gap. A team outcome doesn’t automatically prove personal contribution. Keep the source info beside the finding.
Use the structure in your next interview.
The blank template records the question, source, support, ownership, and follow-up. It is an evaluation blueprint, not Axiom’s private scoring equations or a validated standalone assessment.
Download the blank scorecard ↓
Before you assign a score
- Confirm that the criterion is relevant to the actual role.
- Check whether the candidate had a fair chance to address it.
- Read the full answer around the excerpt.
- Separate personal ownership from a team result.
- Record missing evidence before deciding what it means.
- Use the configured evaluation policy and retain human review.