Candidate evidence report

What this report is — and the decision it supports

Every assessment on SkillCort starts from a role blueprint: the competencies the role needs and the tasks that make them observable. The candidate evidence report closes that loop for one person. It opens with a role-fit summary tied directly to that blueprint, then walks through the candidate's actual task outputs, the rubric scores each output earned, and the evaluator notes behind those scores.

The decision it supports is the advance-or-not call. It does not make that call — no SkillCort report does. Instead it lays out the evidence in the order a decision-maker needs it: how well the candidate fits the role overall, where that conclusion comes from, and what a reviewer would want to double-check before committing. The report is printable and white-label, so it travels cleanly to anyone who needs to see it.

When to reach for it

The most common moment is the advance decision itself: a recruiter has screened, the assessment is scored, and a hiring manager needs to decide who moves to the next stage. Ten minutes with this report replaces the usual patchwork of a score in one tab, a résumé in another, and a half-remembered screening note.

It also earns its keep before an interview — reading the candidate's actual work outputs lets the interviewer probe real gaps instead of re-testing what the assessment already covered. And when a colleague asks 'why did this person advance and that one didn't,' handing over two evidence reports answers the question better than any summary you could write from memory.

• Making the advance / hold / decline call after scoring is complete.
• Preparing an interviewer, so the conversation builds on the evidence instead of repeating it.
• Briefing a hiring manager who did not sit on the evaluation panel.
• Answering a stakeholder who asks how a specific candidate was assessed.

What's inside, section by section

The report follows a consistent structure, so once you have read one you can navigate any of them. It moves from conclusion to evidence to context — summary first, then the work itself, then the conditions it was produced under.

• Role-fit summary: how the candidate's performance maps to the role blueprint's competencies, stated in plain language.
• Task outputs with evaluator notes: what the candidate actually produced for each work sample, alongside what each evaluator observed.
• Rubric scores per competency: every score against the rubric written before responses were reviewed. When the assessment has multiple sections or weights, tasks are grouped by section.
• Weighted-scoring note: a plain explanation of how section and skill weights shaped the overall fit, so the headline number is never a mystery.
• Proportional integrity timeline: any integrity signals during the session, in context — presented for human review, never as an automatic verdict.

How it's produced

There is no manual assembly. The report is generated from artifacts that already exist by the time scoring is done: the role blueprint, the rubrics, the candidate's submitted work, and the scores and notes evaluators entered as they reviewed. The scoring math is the same transparent rollup used everywhere in SkillCort — evaluators average within a criterion, criteria combine by rubric weights, and tasks roll up by skill weight times section weight.

Because nothing is retyped or summarized by hand, the report cannot drift from the underlying record. What a hiring manager reads is what the evaluators scored, attributed and traceable. Export it as a printable, white-label PDF whenever the decision needs to travel outside the platform.

How to read it well

Start with the role-fit summary, but do not stop there — the summary is the map, and the task outputs are the territory. Read at least one output in full before forming a view; it is the fastest way to calibrate what the scores actually mean for this role and this rubric.

Two misreadings are worth naming. First, an integrity event is not a verdict: the timeline is proportional context for a human to weigh, and many events have innocent explanations worth a conversation. Second, a middling overall score can hide a spiky profile — check the per-competency scores before concluding, because a candidate weak in a heavily weighted section may still be exceptional where your team most needs depth.