Hiring committee packet template: what to include so reviewers can decide from paper

A hiring committee packet is the file a recruiter assembles so that people who did not interview a candidate can make or confirm a hiring decision from written evidence. It holds a one-page cover sheet, every interviewer's scorecard in full, work samples, reference notes, the proposed level and pay, and the recruiter's and hiring manager's recommendations, clearly separated from the evidence. A good packet lets a reviewer reach a decision in about fifteen minutes without calling anyone.

This is a different document from the ones used earlier in the process. The interview debrief template is for interviewers meeting to discuss a candidate; the packet is for a separate group that was not in the room. The candidate assessment summary is a single write-up of one candidate, and it becomes the core of the packet's evidence section. If you are choosing between finalists, how to compare candidates has the decision matrix.

Why committees decide from a packet

Companies use hiring committees to keep the bar consistent across teams and to separate the decision from the people who got to like the candidate. That only works if the packet carries the evidence, not the enthusiasm. A packet is doing its job when:

• Each score is backed by what the candidate said or did, not by the interviewer's adjectives.
• Disagreements between interviewers are visible, not averaged away.
• The level and pay proposal are tied to the level criteria, not to what the candidate asked for.
• A reviewer can see what was not assessed, as well as what was.

What goes in the packet, in order

Put the recommendations last. The resume and application go in an appendix; reviewers who read the resume first tend to anchor on company names and titles before they read any interview evidence.

The cover sheet template

HIRING COMMITTEE PACKET — COVER SHEET
Candidate: [name]                 Packet ID: [ ]
Role: [title]                     Team: [ ]
Proposed level: [level]           Req ID: [ ]
Recruiter: [name]                 Hiring manager: [name]
Committee date: [date]            Decision needed: [hire / hire at
                                  different level / no hire]

INTERVIEW LOOP
Stage               Interviewer        Competencies     Score (1–4)
[Phone screen]      [name]             [ ]              [ ]
[Technical 1]       [name]             [ ]              [ ]
[Technical 2]       [name]             [ ]              [ ]
[Behavioral]        [name]             [ ]              [ ]
[Work sample]       [name]             [ ]              [ ]
[Hiring manager]    [name]             [ ]              [ ]

SUMMARY BY MUST-HAVE (from intake)
1. [must-have]: [met / partly / not met / not assessed]
   Strongest evidence: [one line, with interview reference]
2. [must-have]: [ ]
3. [must-have]: [ ]

WHERE INTERVIEWERS DISAGREED
[Competency]: [interviewer A score + one-line reason] vs
[interviewer B score + one-line reason]. Debrief outcome: [ ]

NOT ASSESSED OR WEAK EVIDENCE
[What the loop did not cover, and whether it matters for this level]

CONCERNS RAISED
[Each concern, who raised it, what evidence supports or answers it]

PAY PROPOSAL
Range for level: $[ ]–$[ ]   Proposed: $[ ]   Candidate expectation: $[ ]
Reason for position in range: [tied to level criteria]

Attachments: scorecards (n), work sample, debrief record, references,
level/pay worksheet, resume

The evidence summary section

This is where most packets are weakest. Interviewers write scorecards separately, and the committee has to assemble a picture from six documents. Do it for them, one row per competency, quoting rather than characterizing.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY
Competency: [name]    Level expectation: [what "meets" looks like at this level]

Interview        Score   Evidence (candidate's words or observed work)
[Technical 1]    [3]     "[short quote]" — [what it shows]
[Behavioral]     [2]     [specific example they gave, with the gap]
[Work sample]    [3]     [what the submission did, measured how]

Pattern: [consistent / mixed — explain]
Confidence: [high / medium / low], because [amount and quality of evidence]

Quotes must be what the candidate said. If an interviewer's notes do not support a quote, paraphrase and mark it as a paraphrase. The evidence-based interview feedback guide explains what counts as evidence and what does not.

A filled example cover sheet

Invented candidate, invented company, abbreviated.

A reviewer reading this knows the real question in under two minutes: is the gap on mentoring and regulated flows enough to hire at L4 instead? That is the discussion the committee should have, and the cover sheet led them straight to it.

The reviewer form

Each committee member fills this in before the meeting, independently, and does not see the others' forms first.

COMMITTEE REVIEWER FORM
Reviewer: [name]    Candidate: [name]    Packet ID: [ ]
Did you interview or refer this candidate?  [no / yes — recuse]

1. Is the evidence sufficient to decide?  [yes / no — what is missing]
2. For each must-have: [met / partly / not met] — evidence you relied on
3. Level: [agree with proposed / lower / higher] — which level criteria
4. Concerns not answered by the packet:
5. Your decision: [hire / hire at different level / no hire /
   need more information]
6. If "need more information": the one question, and how to answer it

Completeness check before the packet goes out

Run this before sending. A committee meeting that ends in "we need more information" costs the candidate a week.

• Every interview in the loop has a scorecard, submitted before the debrief, with its submission time visible.
• Every score has at least one piece of evidence, not only a rating.
• Scorecards are unedited. If an interviewer changed a score after the debrief, both versions are included with the reason.
• The must-haves on the cover sheet are the ones agreed at intake, not rewritten to fit the candidate.
• Anything not assessed is listed.
• The pay proposal cites the level range and the reason for the position in it.
• Reviewers' conflicts are checked: nobody on the committee interviewed or referred the candidate.
• Nothing in the packet refers to protected characteristics, health, family plans or other information that should not influence the decision. The what not to write in interview notes page lists what to remove.
• The packet is shared only with the committee, through the access-controlled system you normally use for candidate records.

Timing and the committee meeting

The packet is only useful if reviewers have time to read it alone. A workable rhythm, as an example to adjust:

In the meeting, start with the reviewers who disagree with the proposal, not the most senior person. Discuss only what the packet leaves unresolved; if everyone's form says the evidence is sufficient and the decision is the same, confirm it and move on. When the answer is "need more information", name the single question, who will answer it, and by when, so the candidate is not left waiting for a second full loop. Record the decision with the must-haves and evidence it relied on, in the same place as the packet.

Packet mistakes and the fix

The quality of a packet is capped by the quality of the notes each interviewer took. Interview Signal writes scorecards where every score carries evidence quotes checked against the transcript, which gives a committee something concrete to read; interviewers should tell candidates at the start that they are using a transcription tool, as the consent guide explains.