By HireHint
Last updated October 18, 2026On this page
An AI-generated evaluation is only useful when a reviewer can understand what supports it. Missing information should remain visible, and a short conversation should not be treated as complete evidence for every requirement.
The example below is fictional and explains an evaluation method. It is not a customer result, a validated prediction or a hiring recommendation.
Start with explicit job criteria
Define the requirements before reviewing a candidate. Record which are essential, which are preferences, and which sources could support an assessment. Avoid adding a new requirement simply because a model mentioned it.
- Use job-relevant criteria that a reviewer can interpret.
- Keep the candidate's statement separate from the reviewer's conclusion.
- Record contradictions and the source that needs clarification.
Work through a fictional evidence review
| Requirement | Available evidence | Review state | Possible next step |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget planning experience | A candidate describes preparing an annual budget | Evidence available for review | Ask about responsibilities and the scale of the work |
| Required reporting tool | The tool has not been discussed | Unknown | Ask a direct, relevant clarification |
| Location requirement | The candidate gives two inconsistent locations | Needs clarification | Resolve the discrepancy before relying on it |
| Preferred sector experience | No evidence has been supplied | Unknown | Keep it separate from essential requirements |
Interpret coverage before a score
If evidence has been assessed for two of seven requirements, five remain unknown. A percentage attached to the available evidence does not mean that the other requirements have been met.
Review the underlying excerpts, their relevance and any unresolved essential requirement. Keep unassessed criteria out of unsupported conclusions. An inability to locate evidence is different from evidence that a candidate does not meet a requirement.
- Look for traceable sources rather than confidence in the wording.
- Review incomplete, contradictory and stale information explicitly.
- Check whether an action is a suggestion, a configured automation or a completed outcome.
Keep people responsible for the decision
HireHint's AI product pages explain job-specific rules, available evidence, permissions and human review. A reviewer should confirm the current evidence and intended action before progressing a candidate.
Use an authorized demonstration to check the handover, history and unresolved criteria. Do not use a fictional example or a vendor's interface screenshot as evidence of predictive accuracy or fairness.