# Use cases

## Appropriate use cases

### Structured technical interview review

Connect each approved question to configured role criteria and attributable evidence, then show support, gaps, and contradictions for a human reviewer.

### Interview coverage review

Identify important role criteria that the interview did not test or did not give the candidate a valid opportunity to address.

### Evidence based panel discussion

Give interviewers a shared evidence map so the panel can discuss the same role criteria and source references instead of relying only on memory or general impressions.

### Role and question quality review

Show where must haves, questions, and ideal answer criteria do not align, overlap unnecessarily, or fail to collect useful job related evidence.

### Delivery alignment review

Connect observable work reasoning to the responsibilities, dependencies, handoffs, risks, and outcomes of a defined role in the business delivery chain.

### Review audit and correction

Preserve a visible path from a finding back to its configured criterion and transcript source, allowing an authorized reviewer to correct or exclude it.

## Use cases that require separate evidence

Work samples, reference checks, technical exercises, credentials, lawful background checks, and on the job performance can inform an employment process. They are separate evidence sources and should not be presented as interview transcript findings unless the product explicitly receives and labels them as such.

## Inappropriate use cases

- Personality, intelligence, mental health, emotion, or truthfulness diagnosis.
- Protected trait or disability inference.
- Face, gaze, appearance, accent, or voice quality scoring.
- Covert monitoring or surveillance.
- Automated rejection, ranking, or hiring without qualified human review.
- Reconstructing a person's private thoughts or universal capability from a limited interview.
- Claiming that public documentation can reproduce the proprietary evaluation.

## Buyer questions

Before adopting any interview evaluation system, ask:

1. Can every material finding be traced to the role criterion and source evidence?
2. Does the system distinguish missing evidence from contradiction?
3. Does it record whether the candidate had a valid chance to answer?
4. Can a human correct or exclude a finding?
5. Are prohibited signals and protected traits excluded?
6. Does the output state its limits without pretending to know more than the source supports?