A candidate evaluation form brings records back to the stated job requirements. Keep each method's observation and its limits attached to the criterion it addresses. Where evidence conflicts or is missing, record the review question before discussing a conclusion.
This original fictional visitor-services example consolidates interview and work-sample records. It does not rank applicants, recommend a hiring decision, or replace the team's established assessment process.
Name the job needs before reading the records
The training role has two supplied needs:
- C1 — Clear written instructions: a reader can identify the next step when the usual schedule does not apply.
- C2 — Handling schedule conflicts: identify the conflicting requests, check the relevant information, and explain the next coordination step.
Use those needs to organize the records. Confidence in an interview is not a substitute for looking at written instructions when C1 is the question.
OPM's assessment-strategy guidance begins with job-related competencies and discusses how different methods provide different information. It also emphasizes consistent, documented assessment. The form here uses those organization principles; it does not turn the source's research statistics into a candidate score or import federal selection procedures. Read the assessment-strategy guidance.
Put exact observations beside their method
The fictional packet contains two records:
I1 — Interview: The applicant describes noticing two requests for the same slot, comparing the request records, and checking with the coordinator before communicating the confirmed arrangement.
W1 — Writing sample: “Follow the published schedule. If the requested slot is unavailable, use the exception process.” The sample does not name the next step in that exception process.
The consolidated view is:
| Criterion | I1: interview evidence | W1: work-sample evidence | Unresolved review point |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1: clear written instructions | No written-instruction evidence in this interview record | Exception step is not specified in the sample | Review the unclear instruction against the assessment's stated requirement and conditions. |
| C2: handling schedule conflicts | Describes identifying the conflict, comparing records, and checking with the coordinator | Names an exception situation but does not demonstrate the coordination sequence | Preserve the method difference; determine what the established assessment process needs to clarify. |
I1 provides a described approach to coordination. It does not establish how the applicant would write an exception instruction. W1 reveals a particular ambiguity in the supplied sample. It does not prove a general inability to communicate or explain why the instruction is missing.
Resist the combined impression
A summary such as “excellent at all communication” reaches past the record. So does “cannot handle exceptions.” Both collapse bounded observations into a broader claim about a person.
A more useful review note is:
I1 describes a coordination sequence relevant to C2. W1 leaves C1's exception next step unspecified. Written-instruction clarity remains unresolved in this packet. Review that gap under the team's established assessment process, retaining the original observations.
Do not average an interview impression with a writing-sample note to make a new score. This exercise supplies no common numerical scale or combination rule. A panel's actual evaluation method and decision authority belong to its established process.
Distinguish missing evidence from an observed gap
I1 contains no written instruction. That is a limit on what the interview record can support about C1. W1 contains an actual instruction whose exception step is unclear. That is an observation about the supplied sample.
Those entries should stay different in the form. Treating both as zero would hide whether a criterion was assessed at all. Treating both as complete would hide the unresolved work-sample issue.
The next record should name the review needed, not invent a follow-up result or a reason for the applicant's wording. Any additional assessment or clarification should follow the team's existing process consistently.
Use the criterion view
Select C1 or C2 to inspect the separate method records. Open the evidence-gap view to compare an unassessed area with W1's documented ambiguity. Read the consolidated note with the original text still available.
The blank scaffold lets you enter job needs, method-specific observations, source IDs, evidence gaps, and panel-review questions. Missing criterion or source ID prompts a visible reminder, retaining typed notes. Confirm before resetting. Use fictional or sanitized material in this public exercise and keep actual applicant records in the appropriate private workflow.
Copy this prompt for the evidence form
Create a complete self-contained HTML candidate-evidence review worksheet.
My stated jobcriteria: [requirements]. Assessmentrecords: [sanitized
method/source/observations]. Reviewmethod/authority: [existingprocess].
Keep methods and evidence limits separate; no overall candidate score.
Include a separate fictional visitor-services case. C1 clearwritten
instructions must identify nextstep when usualschedule doesnotapply.
C2 handlescheduleconflicts by identifyingrequests/checkinginformation/
nextcoordinationstep. I1interview: applicant describes two requests for
same slot, comparesrecords, checkscoordinator, communicates confirmed
arrangement. W1writing: “Follow the published schedule. If the requested
slot is unavailable, use the exception process.” Nextstep unspecified.
I1supports describedC2approach, no writteninstruction evidence forC1;
W1shows exactC1ambiguity, no fullC2coordinationsequence. Keep original
records unchanged. Do not infer personality, motive, overall ability,
hire/reject decision, rank, legal conclusion, or followupresult.
Show a complete criterion-by-method evidence table and boundedreview
note. Compare “excellent at all communication” with exact observations
and unresolved C1question. Distinguish missingevidence from observed
gap. Let users inspect C1/C2 and source records, reveal reviewquestion,
and enter blank criteria/method/source/notes. Name missingcriterion or
source, preserve typing across views/validation, confirm reset. No
averaging unlike observations, numericrating, applicanttracking or
automatic decision. Actual records belong in private establishedprocess.
Use labeled keyboard-accessible controls, visible focus, system fonts
at least16px, readable360px layout without horizontal scrolling, inline
CSS/JavaScript, no dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Make the review question about the work
In NOS, revise the prepared form's visible review heading from “Is this candidate a good communicator?” to “What does each record show about C1 and C2?” Keep I1 and W1 alongside it. That change helps the panel discuss the actual discrepancy before a broad label takes over the conversation.