# A candidate search evaluation checklist you can use

By Vettara | 2026-10-29

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.

Brief owner: ____
Review date: ____
Role and outcomes: ____
Titles / companies / markets: ____
Must-haves and exclusions: ____

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Record the human decision.** Mark each check supported, contradicted or unknown. Keep the reviewer’s next action separate from the software’s suggestion.
5. **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.

## Record each check

### Brief: Confirmed scope

- Test: Which titles, companies, markets and exclusions were actually used?
- Evidence to record: A recorded brief agreed before the search
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Current role: Employment and dates

- Test: Does the source support the current role, or only earlier experience?
- Evidence to record: Source and date for the precise role claim
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Function: Work behind the title

- Test: Does the evidence explain responsibilities relevant to the mandate?
- Evidence to record: A source-backed responsibility, plus remaining questions
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Company: Employer context

- Test: Is the employer or operating context in the agreed scope?
- Evidence to record: An explicit match or an explained mismatch
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Market: Country remit

- Test: Is country coverage stated, rather than inferred from a regional title?
- Evidence to record: Named remit or an open question
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Evidence: Claim and source

- Test: Can the reviewer follow the source and see what it actually supports?
- Evidence to record: A source link, checked date and a precise claim
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Uncertainty: Unknown versus contradiction

- Test: Are absent facts kept distinct from evidence against a requirement?
- Evidence to record: Supported, contradicted or unknown with a reason
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Negative control: Obvious mismatch

- Test: Does an agreed wrong-function or wrong-market case remain visible as a mismatch?
- Evidence to record: A recorded result against the pre-agreed control
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Correction: Outdated information

- Test: What does the team do when a source is stale or the brief changes?
- Evidence to record: A documented correction or revised search scope
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Handoff: Next human action

- Test: Can a second reviewer understand the evidence and the question without a sales explanation?
- Evidence to record: Reviewer, open question and next action
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Workflow: Manual work

- Test: What needed checking or entering again in your existing hiring system?
- Evidence to record: Observed review time and repeated steps
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

### Decision: Evaluation outcome

- Test: Which requirements are satisfied, unresolved or incompatible with your process?
- Evidence to record: A reasoned team decision, not an aggregate vendor score
- Observed result: ____
- Review status (supported / contradicted / unknown): ____
- Owner: ____
- Next action: ____

## Include control cases

- **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.

Rows actually reviewed: ____
Supported: ____ | Contradicted: ____ | Unknown: ____
Open questions and next decision: ____

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.

A reviewed sample is not a general success rate or a vendor score. No performance benchmark or compliance claim is made by this template.

Original web version: https://vettarasearch.com/blog/candidate-search-evaluation-checklist