---
title: "Hiring interview debrief notes template"
canonical: https://candor.inc/templates/interview-debrief-notes-template
author: Sarthak Singh, co-founder of Candor
date_published: 
date_modified: 
---

# Hiring interview debrief notes template

Hiring interview debrief notes record, for each role criterion, the evidence from the interview, any unresolved evidence gap and agreed follow-ups. A candidate describing a past incident is evidence of their answer, not proof the incident happened as described. Use the template when interviewers need to compare accounts and decide what to check, alongside your employer's assessment process.

Disclosure: Candor is an app that will compete with some products named here. We describe every product, including Candor, from its own documentation, and we'll test them all with the same published method.

> **Short answer**
> - Repeat the criterion section for each part of the role assessed in this interview.
> - Separate a candidate's account from behaviour observed in an exercise.
> - Write “not assessed” when a criterion was not covered; leave the evidence gap visible.
> - Enter an action owner or deadline only when the follow-up was agreed.

Use the Copy button on the blank block, or select it and copy. For plain text, remove the heading marks and list bullets after pasting into a text editor.

## Template

<!-- template:start -->
```markdown
## Interview details
- Role:
- Interview stage:
- Interview date:
- Interviewers:
- Candidate reference used in this document:

## Criterion and evidence
Repeat the sections from Role criterion through Unresolved evidence gap
for each criterion. Write "not assessed" if it was not covered.

### Role criterion
- Criterion:
- What the criterion means for this role:

### Evidence from interview
- Question or exercise:
- Evidence type (candidate account / observed exercise / not assessed):
- Evidence, as a brief quote or faithful paraphrase:
- Evidence reference (question number, timestamp, or interviewer note):
- Evidence recorded by:
- Source check status (not checked / checked against cited record):
- Source checked by and date, only if checked:

### Interpretation
- What this evidence may indicate about the criterion:
- What remains an inference rather than an observed fact:

### Unresolved evidence gap
- What is missing, unclear, or conflicting:
- What could resolve it:
- Agreed follow-up, if any:
- Follow-up owner, if agreed:
- Follow-up due date, if agreed:

## Debrief record
- Suggestions raised:
- Decision recorded, if any:
- Hiring decision status (no decision recorded / decision recorded):
- Decision source or reference:
- Open follow-up items:

## Note check
- Names and role details checked by:
- Evidence references checked by:
- Unresolved gaps kept visible:
- Date checked:
```
<!-- template:end -->

For a Word file you create from these notes, Google's web instructions say to double-click the file in Drive, then choose Open with Google Docs. [1]

## Filled example

Everything in this example is fictional, including the source references and checks. “Checked” demonstrates how to fill the field; it claims no real verification.

<!-- example:start -->
```markdown
## Interview details
- Role: Staff data engineer
- Interview stage: Systems interview
- Interview date: 20 October 2026
- Interviewers: Mara Chen, Dev Patel
- Candidate reference used in this document: Candidate C-17

## Criterion and evidence
### Role criterion
- Criterion: Operational ownership
- What the criterion means for this role: Can explain how they detect pipeline failures and coordinate a response.

### Evidence from interview
- Question or exercise: Tell us about a pipeline failure you handled.
- Evidence type (candidate account / observed exercise / not assessed): Candidate account
- Evidence, as a brief quote or faithful paraphrase: Paraphrase: the candidate said they added a freshness alert after a delayed feed left a dashboard stale.
- Evidence reference (question number, timestamp, or interviewer note): Mara's interview notes, question 4, paragraph 2
- Evidence recorded by: Mara Chen
- Source check status (not checked / checked against cited record): Checked against cited record
- Source checked by and date, only if checked: Mara Chen, 20 October 2026; wording compared with her interview notes, not the past incident

### Interpretation
- What this evidence may indicate about the criterion: The answer connects a failure with a described monitoring change.
- What remains an inference rather than an observed fact: The account does not establish whether the alert worked or who coordinated incident updates.

### Unresolved evidence gap
- What is missing, unclear, or conflicting: The answer did not cover incident communication.
- What could resolve it: Ask who was informed and when.
- Agreed follow-up, if any: Dev agreed to ask that question in the scheduled follow-up interview.
- Follow-up owner, if agreed: Dev Patel
- Follow-up due date, if agreed: 22 October 2026

## Debrief record
- Suggestions raised: Add a question about incident communication.
- Decision recorded, if any: None on hiring; the follow-up action was agreed.
- Hiring decision status (no decision recorded / decision recorded): No decision recorded
- Decision source or reference: Debrief notes, 20 October 2026, closing section: follow-up assigned; hiring outcome left open
- Open follow-up items: Dev to ask about incident communication by 22 October 2026.

## Note check
- Names and role details checked by: Mara Chen
- Evidence references checked by: Mara Chen
- Unresolved gaps kept visible: Yes; incident communication remains unassessed.
- Date checked: 20 October 2026
```
<!-- example:end -->

The follow-up is agreed; the hiring outcome remains open.

## When to use this

Use this after an interview to compare evidence against the role criteria and carry unanswered questions into the next discussion. A transcript fits when you need exact wording; an assessment scorecard fits when your hiring process requires ratings against defined standards. Keep this worksheet alongside the required record.

Suggested workflow:

1. Copy the role criteria from the interview plan before adding interpretations.
2. Have each interviewer complete their evidence sections before comparing accounts.
3. Discuss differences by returning to the cited answers. Keep conflicting accounts attributed to their authors.
4. Record any agreed follow-up and leave unassessed criteria marked as such.

OPM's guide for U.S. federal structured interviews recommends notes on responses and independent panel evaluations before discussion (Section II, p. 15; Appendix D, pp. 25–26). [2] The workflow above is an editorial suggestion, not a rule for every employer.

## What to customise

Use your team's criterion names and approved candidate reference. If a scorecard already holds the evidence, link to it rather than copying a second account. Add a separate entry for contradictory evidence; do not blend accounts into apparent agreement.

Delete the hiring-decision fields if decisions belong elsewhere. Keep an unresolved gap even when nobody has agreed to investigate it; write “not agreed” in the follow-up fields. Changing the date format or country label does not establish compliance with local rules.

## Field-by-field guidance

| Field | What to enter | Where to get it | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interview details | Role, stage, date, interviewers and candidate reference | Interview plan and attendance record | Combining different interview stages |
| Role criterion | Criterion and its meaning for this role | Interview plan | Inventing a criterion to fit one answer |
| Evidence from interview | Question, evidence type, attributed quote or labelled paraphrase, reference and recorder | Interview notes or authorised recording | Turning “candidate said” into a verified event |
| Source check | Check status, checker and date | Person who compared the entry with its cited record | Claiming a check that nobody performed |
| Interpretation | What the evidence may indicate; what remains an inference | Evidence against the criterion | Writing “poor communicator” without supporting evidence |
| Unresolved evidence gap | Missing or conflicting evidence and a possible way to resolve it | Criterion compared with available evidence | Treating “not assessed” as proof of inability |
| Agreed follow-up | Accepted action, owner and agreed date, if any | Recorded assignment | Turning a proposed question into an assigned task |
| Debrief record | Suggestions, recorded decision, hiring status, source and open follow-ups | Debrief record | Confusing an agreed follow-up with a hiring decision |
| Note check | Checkers, gaps still open and date checked | People who performed the checks | Treating a wording check as approval to hire |

Think of an evidence reference as a receipt. It lets you trace an entry to its source; it does not prove every claim made in that source. (A timestamp is a location, not a stamp of truth.)

## Voice and AI workflow

Dictate a recap after the interview or map an authorised transcript into the fields. Label a recap from memory as such; do not invent timestamps. If exact words cannot be checked, use a labelled paraphrase.

Use fictional material for practice. Before using actual notes with an AI tool, get your organisation's approval for that tool and material, then remove confidential or identifying data. Removing a name does not replace that approval. Have a person compare the draft with its sources before anyone acts on it.

Copy this prompt together with the blank template:

```text
Map the approved source material below into the supplied hiring interview
debrief notes template. Return working notes for follow-through.

Preserve the template's field names and order. For each role criterion,
separate evidence from interview, interpretation and unresolved evidence gap.
Keep the question or exercise, evidence type, evidence reference and recorder
beside the evidence. Distinguish a candidate account from an observed exercise.
Use quotation marks only for exact source wording; label paraphrases.
Copy interpretations only when they are present in the source.

Write "unknown" for missing details and "not assessed" for uncovered criteria.
Flag conflicting evidence with attribution. Keep suggestions separate from
recorded hiring decisions and agreed follow-ups. Enter a follow-up owner or
due date only if explicitly agreed in the source. Do not infer agreement or
invent names, evidence, references, checks, decisions, owners or dates.
Set source check status to "not checked" unless a completed human check is
explicitly documented. Do not score candidates or recommend a hiring outcome.

Before pasting source material, the reader must remove confidential or
identifying data and obtain approval for this tool and use. After drafting,
a human must confirm every name, decision, evidence reference, agreed action
and due date against the source. A model-generated draft is not that check.

Blank template and approved source material follow:
```

For the different job of preparing minutes, see [transcript to minutes](https://candor.inc/minutes/from-transcript). For recording questions, see recording meetings.

## Related templates

The explanatory hub is [Meeting minutes vs meeting notes vs transcript](https://candor.inc/minutes/minutes-vs-notes).

## Frequently asked questions
### What do you include in your interview notes?

For each role criterion, record the evidence from the interview, any unresolved evidence gap and agreed follow-ups. Label each piece of evidence as a candidate account or behaviour observed in an exercise. Write 'not assessed' when a criterion was not covered.

### What format or structure do you use for interview notes?

Use a repeating section for each criterion: role criterion, evidence from interview, interpretation and unresolved evidence gap. A debrief record and a note check follow. OPM's guide to US federal structured interviews recommends notes on responses and independent panel evaluations before discussion [2].

### Why do interviewers write notes when they could record the interview and listen later?

Notes and transcripts do different jobs. A transcript fits when you need exact wording, while debrief notes compare evidence against the role criteria and carry unanswered questions into the next discussion. Each evidence entry can still point to a question number, timestamp or interviewer note.

## What this page cannot tell you

This optional layout does not set assessment standards or determine a hiring outcome. It cannot establish recording permission, access rights or retention periods; ask the people responsible for your hiring records. The example is fictional; no AI-output or document-compatibility test is reported here.

## About this page

Candor is being built as personal voice intelligence for everyone. You can join the Candor waitlist at candor.inc. Candor's own documentation is at [candor.inc/docs](https://candor.inc/docs).

Last checked: 4 November 2026. To report an error, write to support@candor.inc.

## Sources

1. Switch from Microsoft Word to Google Docs — https://support.google.com/docs/answer/9310150?hl=en — checked 2026-11-04
2. Structured interviews: a practical guide — https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/structured-interviews/guide.pdf — checked 2026-11-04