Pair this scorecard with the role definition matrix. The matrix defines the job. The scorecard asks whether a specific candidate fits the matrix.

Use it in the second interview, not the first. The first interview is for context and chemistry. The second is for the structured judgement that overrides the chemistry when the chemistry is misleading.

How to score

1 = Will fail this row outright. Definite no.
2 = Will struggle visibly and need ongoing oversight.
3 = Will do the work but not raise the bar. The team's average drops slightly.
4 = Will deliver the row and quietly improve how the team handles it.
5 = Will redefine what success on this row looks like in three months.

Be honest with the threes. A team of threes is what most startups end up with not because they hire threes deliberately, but because they let three-shaped evidence accrue without naming it.

The seven rows

1. The gap

Will this candidate close the specific gap the matrix names? Score against the gap, not against their general capability.

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

2. Success in 90 days

Walk the candidate through your three 90-day deliverables. Watch their reaction in real time. A 4 candidate sharpens at least one of them; a 3 candidate restates them.

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

3. Success in 12 months

Ask the candidate what success looks like for them in this role at twelve months. Compare to your matrix entry. The gap between the two is itself the data — small gap means alignment; large gap means either a misunderstanding or a different vision worth understanding.

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

4. Decisions they will own

Walk through one specific decision from the matrix. Ask how they would approach it. Listen for the structure of their thinking, not the right answer (you may not know the right answer either).

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

5. Decisions they will not own

Tell them which decisions stay with you and watch their reaction. A 4 candidate accepts the boundary and asks how the handover will work. A 2 candidate either over-commits to the boundary (telling you what you want to hear) or under-commits (looking for ways around it).

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

6. Cultural absorption

Not 'culture fit' (lazy framing). Cultural absorption is whether they can read your team's actual rhythm and contribute without disrupting the rhythm in the first thirty days. Ask about a previous team transition and how they navigated the first month.

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

7. The release condition

Tell them the release condition from the matrix. Watch the response. A 4 candidate engages with it constructively ("how would we know I was on track to that?"). A 2 candidate gets defensive or treats it as a threat.

Score: ___ / 5
Evidence: ______

The aggregate

Sum the scores. The cutoffs:

30+ : Strong yes. Make the offer this week.
24-29: Yes with one specific concern. Address the concern in a follow-up before offer.
18-23: No. The role is too important for someone who scored a 3 across the board.
Under 18: Easy no. Move on without second-guessing.

The temptation at 24-29 is to round up because hiring is hard and you are tired. Resist. The eighteen-to-twenty-three founder who hired anyway is the founder writing the kill-criteria template six months later about why the hire did not work.

Two more passes before the offer

References against the rows that scored under 4. Ask former managers specifically about those rows ('how did they handle decisions they didn't own?').
A second-interviewer scorecard. Have someone else interview the candidate without seeing your scores. Compare. Where you both score 4+, the call is easy. Where you disagree, dig in before deciding.

A candidate is judged on what they will do, not on the impressions they leave. The scorecard is the artefact that lets you tell the difference between the two when the chemistry is misleading you.

Template from Marga Haus · margahaus.com/resources · Adapt and use freely. Attribution appreciated, not required.

Hiring scorecard