The document I used to evaluate product design candidates, shown as an excerpt rather than rewritten for the web. Every candidate was scored on the same criteria, with evidence from the portfolio review and the interview.
1Below bar·2Near bar·3At bar·4Above bar
2 · Near bar: part of the At-bar signal is there, with a gap the interviewer can name.
Below bar
At bar
Above bar
01
Problem framing
“What problem were you solving, and for whom?”
Below bar
Starts with screens; the problem is implied.At bar
Clear user, job and constraint.Above bar
Reframed the original request and can show why.02
Own contribution
“What did you personally decide, and what did the team?”
Below bar
“We” everywhere; own role unclear.At bar
Separates own decisions from the team’s.Above bar
Names a call they made that others disagreed with, and the outcome.03
Evidence and trade-offs
“What did you choose not to do, and why?”
Below bar
Decisions rest on taste.At bar
Key decisions trace to research or data.Above bar
Shows rejected options and the cost of the chosen one.04
Craft and systems
“How does this hold up across states and screens?”
Below bar
Polished hero screens only.At bar
Consistent components, states and edge cases.Above bar
Built or extended the system so others ship faster.05
Outcome
“How did you know it worked?”
Below bar
No measure, or “users liked it”.At bar
A metric or test result tied to the goal.Above bar
Followed up after launch and changed the design based on it.06
Collaboration
“Tell me about a disagreement with engineering or product.”
Below bar
Blames others or avoids the question.At bar
Explains the conflict and how it was resolved.Above bar
Changed how the team works so it doesn’t repeat.Hire bar: an average of 3, with no criterion at 1.
Scores were written down before the debrief, so the loudest voice didn’t set the result.
CONNECT
[ COPY ]
BASED IN
San Francisco · remote · open to relocation
LOOKING FOR
Senior Product Designer · AI Product Designer · UX/UI