---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify the interview process produced comparable, evidence-based experiences across candidates and that hire / no-hire recommendations are anchored to competency evidence rather than impression, likability, or proxies for protected-class signals. Interview is where bias is most visible to a careful reviewer; flag patterns now so they don't get sealed at the gate.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, file feedback for any violation:

- **Question consistency** — Primary behavioral questions are materially consistent across candidates for the same role. Follow-up probes can adapt to the candidate's answers, but the primary probes are the same.
- **Independent assessment** — Each interviewer's assessment was produced before any debrief discussion; anchoring signals (matched language across interviewers' notes, identical scores with identical anchor wording) are flagged.
- **Evidence anchors per score** — Every per-dimension rating has at least one verbatim or near-verbatim evidence anchor; anchorless ratings are flagged.
- **Debrief resolution documented** — Where independent scores disagreed, the debrief's rubric-level reconciliation is documented in the scorecard — not silently averaged away.
- **Methodology documented** — The aggregation methodology is stated before the aggregated scores; consensus, override-with-cited-evidence, and range-disclosure paths are visible.
- **Recommendation rationale** — Hire / no-hire recommendations name the dispositive evidence and the specific must-have competencies it speaks to.
- **Likability and surface-confidence proxies** — Rationale does not lean on "great culture fit", "high energy", "team player" or similar without substantive behavioral definition.
- **Protected-class proxies** — Rationale does not encode age, gender, parental status, disability, national origin, or other protected-class signals explicitly or as proxies (e.g., "digital native", "cultural style match", "very polished communicator" where "polished" is a vocabulary-match proxy).
- **Accommodation handling** — Where ADA / disability / religious / family-scheduling accommodations were made, they are documented and the debrief did not penalize the candidate for the accommodation.
- **Seniority calibration** — Where panel evidence indicates the candidate is operating above or below the scoped level, the calibration signal is surfaced for the offer stage rather than silently absorbed.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A scorecard where every interviewer's evidence anchor uses near-identical language — suggests anchoring during the debrief rather than independent assessment
- A "hire" recommendation where the rationale references the candidate's "polish" or "presence" rather than competency evidence
- A "no-hire" recommendation where no specific must-have is named as failed and no specific failure-mode evidence is cited
- A debrief that averaged a 4 / 4 / 2 to a "3" without surfacing why one interviewer scored sharply lower
- A panel scorecard where one dimension's average dropped from 3.5 to 2.5 because of a single low score, but the low scorer's evidence anchor was much weaker than the others — averaging masking calibration drift
- Accommodations that show up as "candidate had less time on section X" without the rationale being that accommodation was provided; the candidate gets penalized for the accommodation
- Recommendations that reference cultural style match, communication polish, or "team-fit" without substantive behavioral definition — these are common proxies for vocabulary match and assimilation rather than competency

Where a finding touches protected-class fairness, ADA accommodations, jurisdictional interview-conduct rules, or reference-check requirements, file the feedback and flag explicitly that the resolution should defer to human review and, where applicable, jurisdictional employment counsel — the plugin does not dispense legal interpretations.
