A WORKSHEET FOR YOUR TEAM
A candidate search evaluation checklist you can use
A useful evaluation records what the research supports, what remains unknown and the next human check. Use this worksheet with one nonconfidential brief and the same review criteria for each product you consider.
Use the same brief and the same checks.
Complete the empty observation, owner and next-action fields in the downloads. Keep results specific to the sample you reviewed. This is an original working template, not a vendor ranking, performance benchmark or compliance assessment.
Use aliases in a shared evaluation worksheet. Keep real candidate details, confidential mandates and private source notes in your authorised workspace. Public examples here contain no candidate records.
Agree one brief
Record the role outcomes, must-haves, target titles, companies, markets and exclusions. Name the reviewer and keep the scope fixed while comparing results.
Include checks that can fail
Use a relevant case, an obvious mismatch and a case with missing evidence. Describe these controls before the search so the outcome does not redefine success.
Inspect the supporting source
Record the source URL and date, the precise claim it supports and the open question. A title or a suggested match alone is not evidence for every requirement.
Record the human decision
Mark each check supported, contradicted or unknown. Keep the reviewer’s next action separate from the software’s suggestion.
Review what the workflow cost your team
Record elapsed review time, repeated data entry and questions still needing follow-up. Compare observed work without inventing a productivity estimate.
TWELVE CHECKS TO RECORD
The evaluation worksheet
For every row, record what you observed and what the team will do next. Use supported, contradicted or unknown with a reason.
| Area | Check | What to test | Evidence to record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brief | Confirmed scope | Which titles, companies, markets and exclusions were actually used? | A recorded brief agreed before the search |
| Current role | Employment and dates | Does the source support the current role, or only earlier experience? | Source and date for the precise role claim |
| Function | Work behind the title | Does the evidence explain responsibilities relevant to the mandate? | A source-backed responsibility, plus remaining questions |
| Company | Employer context | Is the employer or operating context in the agreed scope? | An explicit match or an explained mismatch |
| Market | Country remit | Is country coverage stated, rather than inferred from a regional title? | Named remit or an open question |
| Evidence | Claim and source | Can the reviewer follow the source and see what it actually supports? | A source link, checked date and a precise claim |
| Uncertainty | Unknown versus contradiction | Are absent facts kept distinct from evidence against a requirement? | Supported, contradicted or unknown with a reason |
| Negative control | Obvious mismatch | Does an agreed wrong-function or wrong-market case remain visible as a mismatch? | A recorded result against the pre-agreed control |
| Correction | Outdated information | What does the team do when a source is stale or the brief changes? | A documented correction or revised search scope |
| Handoff | Next human action | Can a second reviewer understand the evidence and the question without a sales explanation? | Reviewer, open question and next action |
| Workflow | Manual work | What needed checking or entering again in your existing hiring system? | Observed review time and repeated steps |
| Decision | Evaluation outcome | Which requirements are satisfied, unresolved or incompatible with your process? | A reasoned team decision, not an aggregate vendor score |
Include a relevant case, a mismatch and an unknown.
Agree these control cases before the search. They are descriptions for a private evaluation, not real candidate records or expected Vettara results.
Relevant case
A role with evidence that appears to meet the agreed function and market.
Verify the source before treating it as supported.Mismatch case
A matching title in a clearly excluded function, employer or market.
Record the exact mismatch against the original brief.Unknown case
A potentially relevant role whose country remit or dates are not established.
Keep the requirement unknown and name the follow-up.Keep the conclusion proportionate to the evidence.
Record the number of rows your team actually reviewed, the checks each row supports and the questions still open. Do not report the software’s suggested matches as independently confirmed candidates. A small reviewed sample describes that evaluation; it does not establish a general success rate.
Use the outcome to decide whether the workflow suits your process and what to test next. Keep interest, availability and hiring assessment with the people responsible for the recruitment process.
PUT THE WORKSHEET TO WORK
Evaluate Vettara with your own brief.
Use a nonconfidential role. An authorised account and available plan usage are required to run a search.