FerroxLabs Candidate evaluation
When to load this mode
User has a signed-off outcome doc from role-design.md and is about to interview, is mid-loop with disagreement surfacing, or just made an offer that feels wrong. No outcome doc means every interview is rapport theater — don't load this without one.
Procedure
Seven moves.
1. Convert the outcome doc into a scorecard. Each outcome becomes a measurable signal. "Trial-to-paid from 4% to 8%" becomes "has the candidate run a conversion experiment that moved a number, and can they describe it, the result, and what they'd do differently?" Three to five signals — match the outcome count.
2. Design the loop, one signal per stage. Default loop, in order:
- Screen call (30 min). Does the track record match the seat? Specific outcomes owned, specific results, specific years. If they can't name a result, screen fails.
- Work sample (60-90 min). A scoped version of the actual work — focused, time-boxed, ideally live. The most predictive stage and the one founders skip most.
- Domain deep-dive (60 min). Hiring manager walks through past projects. "What did you decide and what did your manager decide? What broke? What did you do?"
- Cross-functional interview (45 min). A peer from a dependent seat. Measures: can this candidate work with the people they'll work with?
- References (2-3 calls, 30 min each). Hiring manager runs them, not HR. Specific questions about what the candidate did, didn't do, and what their next manager should know.
Four stages suffices for mid-level seats. For senior seats, add a strategy/judgment stage with an ambiguous question — the signal is how they think, not what they answer.
3. Score on evidence, not feeling. Each stage produces a written score against the named signal: strong yes / yes / lean no / no. One paragraph of evidence — the specific thing the candidate did or said. "I liked them" isn't a score. "Named three experiments, two with concrete results and one failure; specific about what they'd do differently" is.
4. Run references like an investigation. Two or three calls with people the candidate actually worked with — direct manager and one peer. Hiring manager calls, not HR. Five questions:
- "Describe the work they actually owned — not their title, the work."
- "Most ambitious thing they shipped, and how it went?"
- "What did they struggle with? Everyone struggles with something."
- "Would you hire them again at your current company, for what role, and why?"
- "Anything I should know that I haven't thought to ask?"
A reference who can't answer specifics — or refuses to name a struggle — is itself a signal.
5. Aggregate, don't average. Read all scores together. One strong yes and three lean-nos is a no, not a tie. One no from the critical-signal stage is a no regardless of other scores. Strongest signal weighs heaviest; averaging is the move of a panel that won't disagree.
6. Resolve disagreement by re-reading evidence. When scorers disagree, read the actual paragraphs — not opinions, written observations. Disagreement that survives evidence review means the loop didn't measure something it should have. Run one more stage or pass.
7. Decide and document. Decision goes in TEAM_MEMORY.md. If hired: name, seat, start date, accountable outcomes, day-90 review date. If not: the signal that failed, so the next loop measures it earlier.
Decision rules
- No outcome doc, no scorecard, no interviewing. Hard rule.
- Work sample is required. Skip every other stage before you skip this one.
- Hiring manager runs references. No exceptions.
- One no from the critical-signal stage is a no. Even if everyone else is yes.
- Tie goes to no. A loop that produced a tie didn't produce evidence of strong yes. Hiring on ambiguous signal is how seats fail.
Anti-patterns
- Behavioral-only loop. Five conversations, zero work samples. The candidate who interviews well and works poorly slides through every time.
- Reference-check-by-script. HR reads a template, gets nothing. Hiring manager runs them or they don't happen.
- The "culture fit" no. Without a named behavior, it's bias. Name the behavior the seat requires, score against it.
- Post-offer scorecard. Scoring after the decision is theater. Score during.
- Unanimous loop with no disagreement. Either too easy or the panel is conflict-averse. Recalibrate.
Before / after
Before: Five interviews, all rapport. Everyone says yes. Hire arrives, can't do the work, leaves at month five. Founder says "they interviewed so well."
After: Four-stage loop with a 90-minute work sample. Three of four scorers say yes with evidence; one lean-no on the strategy stage with a named reason. Team re-runs that signal in a follow-up. Yes becomes strong yes on evidence. Hire ships against the outcome doc by month four.