Interview Debrief & Consolidation

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Individual Evidence Summaries extracted from each interviewer's scorecard and the Structured Interview Guides that define the evaluation criteria.

TASK
For each evaluation criterion, consolidate the evidence and ratings from all interviewers into a single cross-panel view. Produce a Cross-Interviewer Evidence Map that shows where interviewers converge and diverge on each criterion.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use a markdown heading for each evaluation criterion. Under each heading, create a table with columns: Interviewer, Rating, Key Evidence Cited, Notes. Below each table, add a one-sentence convergence summary stating whether the panel broadly agrees, partially agrees, or disagrees on this criterion.

EXAMPLE
## Technical Problem-Solving
| Interviewer | Rating | Key Evidence Cited | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interviewer 1 — Technical Lead | Strong | "Described a systematic root-cause analysis approach" | Noted speed of resolution |
| Interviewer 2 — Team Lead | Partial | "Solved the problem but skipped documentation" | Flagged process gap |

**Convergence:** Partial agreement — technical capability confirmed, process discipline disputed.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not merge or average ratings across interviewers. Do not omit any interviewer's evidence even if it appears redundant. Do not introduce criteria not present in the Structured Interview Guides.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Cross-Interviewer Evidence Map showing each evaluation criterion with ratings and evidence from all panel members.

TASK
Analyze the evidence map to produce an Agreement and Disagreement Analysis. Identify criteria where the panel is in strong agreement, criteria where significant disagreement exists, and criteria where evidence is thin or inconclusive.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Organize the output into three sections:
- **Strong Agreement:** List each criterion where all interviewers gave consistent ratings. For each, state the consensus rating and the strongest supporting evidence.
- **Significant Disagreement:** List each criterion where ratings diverge by two or more levels or where interviewers cite contradictory evidence. For each, state the conflicting positions and the specific evidence driving the disagreement.
- **Insufficient Evidence:** List any criteria where fewer than half the interviewers provided a rating or where evidence is vague. Note what follow-up would resolve the gap.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not classify a criterion as "strong agreement" if any interviewer rated it more than one level differently. Do not speculate on reasons for disagreement — cite only what the evidence shows. Do not omit any criterion from the analysis.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Agreement and Disagreement Analysis and the Cross-Interviewer Evidence Map for a candidate.

TASK
Produce a Risk and Concerns Register that lists every unresolved concern, open question, and hiring risk identified from the disagreement and insufficient-evidence areas. For each item, cite the specific evidence that triggered the concern and suggest what additional information or follow-up would resolve it.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use a numbered list. For each item include:
- **Concern:** One-sentence description of the risk or open question
- **Source Evidence:** The specific criterion, interviewer, and evidence that raised this concern
- **Suggested Resolution:** One-sentence recommendation for how to resolve (e.g., follow-up call, reference check, additional assessment)
- **Severity:** [High / Medium / Low] based on impact to the hiring decision

CONSTRAINTS
Do not flag concerns for criteria where the panel is in strong agreement. Do not recommend resolution actions that require access to systems or data not available in this workflow. Do not assign severity based on assumptions about role importance — rate based only on the degree of evidence conflict.

CONTEXT
You will be provided with the Cross-Interviewer Evidence Map, the Agreement and Disagreement Analysis, and the Risk and Concerns Register for a candidate.

TASK
Consolidate all inputs into a single Draft Interview Debrief Summary. The summary must present the panel's collective assessment, highlight key strengths and concerns, and conclude with a clear hiring recommendation supported by cited evidence.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Use the following sections:
- **Candidate Overview:** One paragraph summarizing the role, interview format, and panel composition.
- **Strengths (Panel Agreement):** Bulleted list of criteria where the panel agreed the candidate was strong, with the consensus rating and one supporting quote per item.
- **Concerns and Risks:** Bulleted list of unresolved disagreements and flagged risks from the register, with severity and source evidence.
- **Open Questions:** Any items from the register that require follow-up before a final decision.
- **Hiring Recommendation:** One of [Hire / Do Not Hire / Hire With Conditions]. Two to three sentences explaining the rationale, citing specific evidence from the strengths and concerns sections.

CONSTRAINTS
Do not introduce evidence not present in the source documents. Do not soften or reinterpret disagreements — present them as recorded. Do not make a recommendation based on criteria not evaluated in the interviews. Do not include personally identifiable information beyond what is necessary for the debrief.