Shortlist job applications with a simple evidence scorecard

Shortlist against the job you advertised, using evidence you can point to in each application. Agree a simple scoring scale before opening the first CV, record unanswered questions separately, and write a reason for each decision. Adding numbers can make a comparison easier to read; it cannot make an irrelevant criterion fair or useful.

This worksheet suits a small employer reviewing applications without a recruiter. It follows a clear job advertisement and leads into a structured interview. It is an aid to human review, not an automated hiring decision.

Choose a few criteria and define evidence

For a fictional administration role, use scheduling accuracy, clear written customer communication and prioritisation. Write down what you need to see for each. Scheduling evidence might describe a clash the applicant found, how they corrected it and how they informed the people affected.

Separate a required licence or other genuine prerequisite from comparative scoring. Do not let a high total silently cancel a prerequisite. Check the necessity and wording of requirements before selection; avoid assumptions based on names, photos, age, accent or a career gap.

The AHRC recruitment and selection guide recommends job-related criteria and recorded reasons. The worksheet here adds an explicit missing-evidence flag so an unanswered question is visible rather than disguised as a measured lack of ability.

Use a scale that reviewers can explain

For this example, 0 means the material provided does not yet demonstrate the criterion, 1 means a relevant assertion without detail, 2 means a specific example, and 3 means a specific example with a clear result and explanation. M means the requested information is missing. M is not a number and should not be silently changed to zero.

This is an editorial example, not a validated assessment instrument. Agree how to request equivalent clarification before using it, and change the criteria to match the actual job.

Applicant	Scheduling / communication / prioritisation	Decision record
Ari	3 / 2 / 2; total 7 of 9	Interview. Described resolving a double booking and explaining the correction. Probe competing deadlines.
Bea	2 / 3 / M; total not calculated	Clarify the missing prioritisation example using the same clarification process offered to comparable applicants.
Cam	1 / 1 / 2; total 4 of 9	Not shortlisted in this example. Application gave limited evidence on two essential criteria. Record the evidence reviewed.
Dev	2 / 2 / 3; total 7 of 9	Interview. Used a volunteer coordination example with clear deadlines. Do not discard equivalent evidence because it was unpaid experience.

Original ASBG worksheet. Names, situations and figures are fictional; the readable table is the text equivalent.

Ari and Dev both score seven, but their examples leave different questions for the interview. Bea's unresolved item is not a lower score than Cam's four; the file is incomplete for comparison. Set a consistent clarification deadline and record whether the reply changed the assessment.

Resolve reviewer disagreement before choosing

Have two reviewers note their reasons independently where possible. If one scores communication 1 and the other 3, return to the same evidence and the scale. Did one infer a skill that was not shown? Did the other miss a relevant attachment? Record the agreed conclusion and the reason instead of averaging away the disagreement.

If you are reviewing alone, compare all applications against one criterion at a time. Revisit the shortlist after a break. Keep a separate interview-question column so a favourable first impression does not erase gaps.

Keep the record factual and restricted

Write "no example of maintaining a changing schedule supplied" rather than a label such as "not our kind of person". Include the criterion, evidence location and decision. Avoid speculative comments about health, family circumstances or personality.

Applicant records need their own privacy assessment: the OAIC employee-records exemption explains that the employee-records exemption does not cover unsuccessful applicants. This page does not prescribe a retention deadline or decide your coverage. Use the privacy guide and obtain advice on access, notices and retention for your process.

Key takeaways

• Decide the criteria and scale before comparing candidates.
• Keep missing evidence visible and consider equivalent experience.
• Use written reasons and human review, not a total alone, to form the shortlist.

The hiring and onboarding guide connects the selection stages.

Where to get help

• AHRC recruitment and selection guide
• OAIC employee-records exemption