SAMPLE REPORT — Illustrative company and figures. No live research was performed, actual agent executions: 0, MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending). Human decisions remain required.
Sample Report 1 · Hiring
Hiring the Right Employee — Director of Operations
Northfield Supply Partners (sample company) · Sample results only
Client assignment
HR has completed first-round interviews with three candidates for Director of Operations and asks for a structured, job-related comparison, the evidence gaps and a plan for the final round.
How the client assigns it to TED: The HR lead opens the Command Center, types the request to TED, attaches the job description, the scoring rubric and interview notes (with candidate consent and identifiers limited to what the role requires), and asks for a comparison memo. TED confirms scope: job-related criteria only, no protected traits, and no hiring decision by the AI team.
Executive summary
On the sample evidence, Candidate B leads narrowly (3.85 of 5) over Candidates A and C (3.60 each). The margin is too small to decide on. Each candidate has a specific evidence gap that a structured final interview and references should close before HR and the hiring manager decide.
3
Candidates compared
Labeled A, B, C (illustrative)
3.85
Top weighted score
Candidate B, out of 5
0.25
Lead margin
Too narrow to decide on alone
Key findings
1. Candidate B leads on leadership and communication
Illustrative notes describe leading a 60-person team through a site consolidation. Operations execution evidence is thinner (score 3): fewer measurable throughput or cost results were described.
2. Candidate C is strongest on operations execution
Scored 5 on execution with a described 12% cycle-time reduction, but change-management and communication evidence is limited to one example each.
3. Candidate A is the most balanced
No score below 3 and solid financial discipline (budget ownership of a sample $8M cost center), but no example of leading a major change program.
4. Scoring consistency needs a check
Two interviewers scored the same answers one point apart on leadership. A calibration step is recommended before final scores are used.
Weighted competency matrix (illustrative scores, 1 to 5)
Weighted score = sum of (score × weight). Example: Candidate B = 3×0.30 + 5×0.25 + 3×0.20 + 4×0.15 + 5×0.10 = 3.85.
Competency (weight)Operations execution (30%)
- Candidate A
- 4
- Candidate B
- 3
- Candidate C
- 5
Competency (weight)Leadership (25%)
- Candidate A
- 3
- Candidate B
- 5
- Candidate C
- 3
Competency (weight)Financial discipline (20%)
- Candidate A
- 4
- Candidate B
- 3
- Candidate C
- 3
Competency (weight)Change management (15%)
- Candidate A
- 3
- Candidate B
- 4
- Candidate C
- 3
Competency (weight)Communication (10%)
- Candidate A
- 4
- Candidate B
- 5
- Candidate C
- 3
Competency (weight)Weighted total
- Candidate A
- 3.60
- Candidate B
- 3.85
- Candidate C
- 3.60
Structured follow-up questions by evidence gap
Same core questions asked of every finalist; follow-ups target each candidate's gap.
CandidateA
- Gap
- Change management
- Follow-up question
- Describe a process change you led that met resistance. What did you do, and what was the measured result?
CandidateB
- Gap
- Operations execution
- Follow-up question
- Walk us through a KPI you owned for a full year: baseline, target, actions and outcome.
CandidateC
- Gap
- Communication
- Follow-up question
- Tell us about delivering difficult news to frontline staff. How did you check it was understood?
Options & decision table
Options for the next step
Illustrative comparison; HR and the hiring manager decide.
OptionAdvance all three to a structured final round
- Benefit
- Closes each gap with comparable evidence
- Risk
- Adds about one week
OptionAdvance B and A only
- Benefit
- Faster; keeps the two highest overall
- Risk
- Drops C's strongest execution profile on a 0.25 margin
OptionAdd a work-sample exercise
- Benefit
- Direct evidence on operations planning
- Risk
- Must be the same for all and job-related
Prioritized action plan
- 1Calibrate interviewer scores against the rubric before finalizingHR lead · This week
- 2Run a structured final round with the same core questions and gap follow-upsHiring manager + panel · Next 10 days
- 3Complete consented reference checks (two former managers, one direct report each)HR · Before offer
- 4Record the human decision and its job-related reasons in the hiring fileHiring manager · At decision
Success metrics
- Interviewer score spread no greater than 1 point after calibration
- All finalists asked identical core questions
- References completed for every finalist
- 90-day review against role objectives after hire
SOCRATEE's Perspective
Sample text, not generated
Assumptions to test
- The 30/25/20/15/10 weights reflect what the role truly needs
- Interview answers predict on-the-job performance
- Notes captured each answer fairly
What deserves questioning
- Would a 0.25 lead survive one interviewer re-scoring?
- Is leadership being over-credited because of presentation style?
- What evidence would change the ranking?
Sources & evidence
Illustrative assumptions (not evidence)
- All candidate evidence, scores and results are sample data
- The $8M cost center and 12% cycle-time reduction are illustrative claims
Verified data needed before deciding
- Candidate-consented references
- Verification of claimed results where permitted
- Calibrated scores from every panel member
Verified evidence attached: none. No citations are provided because no research was performed.
Safeguards
- Job-related criteria only; protected traits are excluded from notes and scoring
- Bias check: compare score patterns across interviewers
- No automated hiring decision; HR and the hiring manager decide
- Candidate data limited to what the role requires
Report status · Research & Review Record
- Actual agent executions: 0
- MAX independent grade: Not run
- 18 Guardians: Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred
- Live research: None performed
- Final decision: Always a human decision
Specialist roles (role definitions · not executed)
- TED — Coordinator: would scope the assignment, route work and assemble the report.
- RES — Would gather role benchmarks and structured-interview practice guidance, cited.
- KNOLLY — Would reconcile interview notes against the rubric and flag inconsistencies.
- Talent Analyst (role definition) — Would structure the rubric and compute weighted scores.
- SOCRATEE — Would question the weights, the margin and possible rater bias.
- LIBBY — Would check that only job-related criteria are used and no protected traits appear.
- MAX — Potential independent grader. Not run; no grade exists.
- 18 Guardians — Potential oversight layer. Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred.
How AI Team One Works — Step by Step (prewritten)
Stage 1
The assignment
HR asks TED to compare three Director of Operations finalists using a job-related rubric.
Stage 2
TED coordinates
TED confirms criteria and consent limits, then routes scoring, evidence review and bias checks.
Stage 3
Specialist responsibilities
A Talent Analyst role scores the matrix, KNOLLY flags note inconsistencies, LIBBY checks for protected traits.
Stage 4
Oversight design
Oversight here would center on fairness: SOCRATEE would test whether a 0.25 lead survives one interviewer re-scoring the same evidence, LIBBY would confirm protected traits stayed out of notes and scoring and that references were candidate-consented, MAX could grade whether the memo supports a decision at all, and the Guardians could review the rubric for job-relatedness. In this sample none of that ran: MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending).
Stage 5
The executive report
The result would look like "Hiring the Right Employee — Director of Operations": findings, options, a prioritized action plan and the data still needed. Prewritten sample content; actual agent executions: 0.