DO
Dan O.
Senior Engineer · Engineering panel · 18 interviews (90 days)
3.4
Candidate experience (of 5)
▼ 0.9 below panel avg
2.6
Avg rating given (of 4)
▼ 0.6 below panel
62%
Consistency vs panel
Often the outlier vote
71%
Started on time
▼ vs 96% panel
Conduct — how candidates rate the interview
Anonymous candidate feedback, released after each process closed.
Started on time
71%
Came prepared
66%
Let me ask questions
88%
Explained next steps
54%
Professional & respectful
91%
Competency coverage
Share of assigned rounds where each competency was actually assessed with evidence.
Problem decomposition
83%
Scalability design
78%
Trade-off reasoning
41%
Communication
72%
Candidate comments
Anonymized, shown in random order, released on a time buffer.
"Started about ten minutes late and hadn't looked at my background. Fair questions once we got going."
"Didn't really tell me what happens next, but was respectful throughout."
"Good technical discussion, felt a bit rushed at the end."
AI insights
Patterns across this interviewer's rounds — for humans to verify and act on.
Runs over time and starts late more than the rest of the panel.
Leaves little evidence behind ratings — 41% of trade-off scores had no notes.
Scores ~0.6 lower than peers on candidates the panel agreed were strong.
Consistently gives candidates room to ask questions (88%).
Coaching
Turn the flags into specific, trackable actions.
→ Pre-read candidate profiles; block 10 min before each interview.
→ Record at least one line of evidence per competency rating.
→ Join a calibration session on the "trade-off reasoning" rubric.