Interview Copilot

Ten minutes between two candidates

A recruiter runs four or five interviews in a single day for a site manager or methods engineer role. Between each one, there are perhaps ten minutes to write down what mattered before the next candidate sits down. The notes that result mix rough quotes, impressions and half-remembered lines from the CV, scattered across a notebook or a free-text field in the ATS.

What a clean transcript does not capture

An accurate transcript says nothing about how a candidate handled an unexpected question, or the pause before an answer. Once the tool is in place, the risk is that the panel leans on the generated summary instead of its own memory of the exchange, and that two candidates assessed against different questions get compared as if they had faced the same ones.

A scoring grid that exists before the first interview

This only works if the recruiter and hiring manager have agreed a set of competencies and questions before the campaign starts. Built after the fact, to justify a preference already formed, that grid carries no comparative value. Without that groundwork, the output is a tidy summary of a conversation. This also assumes enough interview volume to justify the effort: for a single, one-off hire, a paper grid is often quicker to put together.

We transcribe and structure; the panel still decides

We transcribe interviews, extract answers against each assessed competency, and produce a side-by-side view of candidates on the same criteria. The recruiter keeps control of the grid and can adjust questions between interviews. The hiring decision is made in the panel meeting, with the summary as input rather than a verdict.