Context — Scorecard Inputs and Gap Protocol
The Gap Protocol
This is the most important section in this kit. Read it before every build.
A gap is any required piece of content that the source material does not provide. Gaps are not problems to solve by guessing — they are signals to stop.
When you identify a gap:
- Record it in the gap report (see format below)
- Stop the build
- Present the gap report to the advisor
- Wait for the advisor to resolve each gap — through client follow-up, a targeted extraction session, or a documented decision
- Proceed only after every gap is marked resolved
What you must never do:
- Fill a gap from the golden example (the golden example is a design reference, not a content source)
- Fill a gap by inferring from the role or industry ("this is a nonprofit CEO search so they probably care about fundraising...")
- Fill a gap from a scorecard built for a different role or client (different role, different organization, different evaluation criteria)
- Fill a gap from a generic competency framework (competencies must come from the specific role's requirements)
- Fill a gap without advisor acknowledgment and sign-off
Why this matters: A scorecard with invented focus areas looks professional but measures the wrong things. Interviewers use it, produce scores, and arrive at the debrief with evaluations based on criteria nobody validated. The hiring decision is built on a foundation the client didn't design and wouldn't have chosen. When the hire fails — and hires based on wrong criteria do fail — the scorecard is the root cause, and the trust damage extends beyond the tool to the engagement.
Gap Report Format
When gaps are identified, produce a gap report before building. Format:
SCORECARD: [Role name] — [Client]
DATE: [YYYY-MM-DD]
SOURCE MATERIAL: [What was provided — extraction interview transcript, prior scorecard, role documentation]
GAPS IDENTIFIED:
1. [Gap name]
Required for: [Which section/element needs this]
What's missing: [Specifically what information is absent]
Resolution needed: [What the advisor needs to find out]
Status: OPEN
2. [Gap name]
...
RESOLUTION LOG:
[Gap 1] — Resolved [date] by [method]: [What was determined]Do not start the build until every gap status is RESOLVED.
Required Inputs by Section
Every section of a scorecard requires specific inputs. This table identifies what each section needs and where it typically comes from.
Role Foundation
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Role title | Yes | Job description / position profile |
| Must-have requirements | Yes | Position profile — confirmed during kickoff |
| Nice-to-have requirements | Yes | Position profile — confirmed during kickoff |
| Competency domains relevant to the role | Yes | Extraction interview — must be explicitly identified, not inferred from role title |
| Organization's mission, vision, and values | Yes | Client documentation or extraction |
Gap trigger: Competency domains not defined → STOP. Do not derive focus areas from the job title alone. A "Chief Executive Officer" at a nonprofit, a biopharma startup, and a PE-backed portfolio company require fundamentally different evaluation criteria. The competency domains must come from what this specific organization needs in this specific role at this specific moment.
Focus Area Design
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Full list of focus areas to be evaluated | Yes | Extraction interview — derived from must-haves and competency domains |
| Focus area descriptions (what "good" looks like for each) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Focus area assignments to interviewers | Yes | Extraction interview + kickoff/alignment meeting decisions |
| Rationale for assignments (why this person evaluates this area) | Yes | Extraction interview |
Gap trigger: Focus areas exist but no descriptions of what "good" looks like → flag. Without evaluation criteria, two interviewers scoring the same focus area will apply different standards. The description is what creates consistency.
Gap trigger: Focus areas not mapped to specific interviewers → flag. Unmapped focus areas produce either duplication (everyone asks about leadership) or gaps (nobody asks about financial acumen). Every focus area must be assigned to at least one interviewer.
Scoring Methodology
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Scoring scale (numerical, descriptive, or hybrid) | Yes | Extraction interview or practitioner standard |
| Scale definitions (what each score level means) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Whether scores are weighted across focus areas | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Overall recommendation framework (Strong Yes / Yes / No / Strong No or equivalent) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Requirement for written justification with every score | Yes | Extraction interview |
Gap trigger: Scoring scale not defined → flag. "Rate them on a scale" is not sufficient. Each level must be defined. What does a 4 mean versus a 3? If the scale is descriptive (Exceeds / Meets / Below), what distinguishes "Meets" from "Exceeds" in this context?
Gap trigger: No requirement for written justification → flag and recommend adding it. A score without justification is an opinion without evidence. In the debrief, it cannot be challenged, supported, or reconciled with a conflicting score from another interviewer. Written justification is what makes the scorecard useful beyond the number.
Behavior-Based Questions
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Question development approach (custom per role, drawn from a bank, framework-based) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Sample questions per focus area | Yes | Extraction interview or practitioner question bank |
| Number of questions per focus area (recommended: 3-5) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Framework for question structure (STAR, behavioral, situational, or practitioner's own) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Confirmation that same questions will be asked of every candidate | Yes | Extraction interview — critical for defensibility |
Gap trigger: Questions provided but no framework or structure → flag. Ad hoc questions produce ad hoc evaluations. Even if the practitioner doesn't use a named framework, the underlying structure (situation → action → result, or similar) must be documented so interviewers understand what they're listening for.
Presentation Evaluation (if applicable)
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a candidate presentation is part of the process | Yes | Extraction interview / kickoff |
| Presentation format (topic, time limits, audience, structure) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Presentation evaluation criteria | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Whether the presentation section is standardized or role-specific | Conditional | Extraction interview |
Gap trigger: Presentation is part of the process but evaluation criteria not defined → flag. If interviewers watch a presentation and then score it, they need to know what they're scoring. "How they presented" is not criteria. Delivery, time management, content relevance, audience engagement, ability to handle Q&A — each must be named if it's being evaluated.
Interview Team Context
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Interview team composition (names or roles) | Yes | Kickoff meeting |
| Pairing assignments (who interviews with whom) | Yes | Kickoff or alignment meeting |
| Decision-maker identification (who decides, who advises) | Yes | Kickoff meeting |
| Whether interviewers have done behavior-based interviewing before | Recommended | Extraction interview or alignment meeting |
Gap trigger: Interview team not finalized → build can proceed with role-based assignments, but must be updated with names before deployment. A scorecard with "Board Member" instead of a name is incomplete but workable in draft. A scorecard deployed to interviewers without their names and specific assignments is not.
Submission and Debrief
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Submission deadline (24 hours, 48 hours, before debrief) | Yes | Extraction interview / practitioner standard |
| Submission method (email, shared folder, platform) | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Who receives completed scorecards | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Whether interviewers see each other's scorecards before debrief | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Debrief format (round robin, open discussion, facilitated) | Recommended | Extraction interview |
Gap trigger: No rule on whether interviewers see each other's scorecards → flag and recommend against. When interviewers read each other's evaluations before the debrief, anchoring bias takes over. The first scorecard submitted shapes how every subsequent scorecard is filled out. Independent evaluation requires submission to the facilitator only, with no cross-visibility until the debrief.
Legal Defensibility
| Input | Required | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmation that same questions are asked of every candidate | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Confirmation that scoring criteria are consistent across candidates | Yes | Extraction interview |
| Documentation retention plan (how long scorecards are kept, where) | Recommended | Client HR policy or practitioner standard |
| Accommodation process for candidates who need interview adjustments | Recommended | Client HR policy |
Gap trigger: Consistency not confirmed → flag. The scorecard's legal defensibility rests on demonstrable fairness — every candidate evaluated on the same criteria by the same process. If interviewers are allowed to freelance (different questions, different focus areas, different scoring), the documentation protects nobody.
Source Material Types and What They Provide
Extraction Interview (Primary Source)
The extraction interview is the authoritative source for all design decisions. It provides:
- Focus area identification and descriptions
- Scoring methodology and scale
- Question development approach
- Interviewer preparation methodology
- Submission and debrief protocols
- What's worked and what's failed in prior searches
When an extraction interview has been conducted, treat it as the source of truth. If the interview conflicts with a prior scorecard template, the interview wins.
Prior Scorecard Template (Supplementary Source)
A prior scorecard (from a previous search, from the client's HR team, from a recruiting platform) provides:
- Structural format and layout
- Categories and section headings
- Scoring scale format
A prior scorecard does not provide:
- Focus areas validated for this specific role
- Competency domains confirmed for this organization
- Questions tailored to this search
- Interviewer assignments
- Methodology decisions (those must come from the practitioner)
When a template arrives without an extraction interview: Treat every design decision in the template as unvalidated. The template shows how a scorecard was built before — not how this one should be built now.
Position Profile / Job Description (Required Supplement)
The position profile is always a required input. It provides:
- Must-have and nice-to-have requirements
- Competency expectations
- Role context within the organization
- Salary range and level indicators that inform evaluation depth
The position profile feeds the focus areas. Focus areas that don't connect to role requirements are irrelevant. Focus areas that miss critical role requirements are dangerous.
Reference Data (Required Supplement)
The client's reference data file is always a required input. It provides:
- Correct spelling of every team member and interviewer name
- Correct organization name and variations
- Correct tool names
Every name in every scorecard must match the reference data file. Extraction interviews, prior templates, and session notes often contain misspellings. The reference data wins.
What the Golden Example Provides
The golden example (File 03a or 03b) is a design reference only.
Use it for:
- Structural format and section order
- Scoring scale design patterns
- Focus area description depth and tone
- Question structure examples
- Submission and debrief protocol patterns
Do not use it for:
- Focus areas (those are specific to the role being evaluated)
- Questions (those are specific to the competency domains)
- Interviewer assignments (those are specific to the team)
- Scoring scale choice (that comes from the practitioner's methodology)
- Any content that should come from the extraction interview
If the golden example's focus areas or questions look similar to the scorecard being built — that is a coincidence of domain, not a source you can draw from. Build from the extraction interview. Use the golden example for how it's structured, not what it evaluates.