Role-fit as a starting point
Each candidate's role-fit percentage comes from a weighted rollup: within a criterion, evaluator scores are averaged; criteria combine by rubric weights; task scores roll up to skills; and skill contributions are weighted by skill weight times section weight. Treat the number as a structured starting point for comparison, not a verdict — the point of the board is to move from the number into the evidence behind it.
Compare candidates side by side
The Decision Board places candidates side by side with weighted role-fit, average score, completion, and integrity status, sortable by any column, so you can see at a glance how the shortlist stacks up. Because every candidate was scored against the same shared rubric and the same weights, the comparison is apples to apples: differences in the numbers reflect differences in demonstrated skill, not differences in who happened to evaluate.
Drill from a score into evidence
Any score on the board drills down into the underlying evidence: the candidate's actual task outputs, the rubric notes evaluators attached to their scores, and the integrity timeline for the attempt. Before deciding between two close candidates, open the evidence behind the scores that separate them — a half-point gap on a heavily weighted skill deserves a look at the actual work, not just the rollup.
Risk flags are context, not verdicts
Risk flags surface integrity signals — such as tab-switch episodes, copy/paste attempts, or a second-screen connection — as context for human review. Nothing auto-rejects a candidate. Open the integrity timeline, look at what actually happened and when, and weigh it alongside the quality of the work. A flag is a prompt to look closer, not a conclusion.
Record the decision
When you decide, the decision is recorded in the decision log, which becomes part of the audit pack — one self-contained decision file that also carries the assessment structure, plain-language methodology, every score with its named evaluator and timestamp, notes, integrity events with a proportionate integrity status per candidate, and the score rollups. Export the audit pack from the Reports page; access is limited to owner, admin, and recruiter roles and tied to results release.
At a glance
- Candidates appear side by side with weighted role-fit, average score, and integrity status — sortable any way you need; a starting point, not a verdict.
- Any score drills down into the underlying evidence: task outputs, rubric notes, and the integrity timeline.
- Risk flags are context for human review — nothing auto-rejects a candidate.
- The decision log becomes part of the audit pack exported from the Reports page.