As of 13 August 2026, AI can only partly make a hiring decision from interview results.

What to actually do

1. Hand it to a person

   The route this page recommends

   A person who owns the outcome does this end to end, worth it when the failure is dear.

2. Use a tool built for this

   Second choice

3. Do it yourself

   The distant third

   A chat interface, chat-fluent skill, and roughly 30 minutes until you can act on the result.

   How to actually do it

   1. Open the job description and write a short list of the essential and desirable criteria, separating job-related requirements from preferences.
   2. Ask every interviewer for their notes and scores, then remove irrelevant personal details and label each item by candidate, question and interviewer.
   3. Gather the agreed interview questions, scoring guide, work-sample results and any notes explaining reasonable adjustments or inconsistent questioning.
   4. Paste the criteria, scoring guide and anonymised evidence into a chatbot using the prompt above, asking it to mark missing evidence instead of filling gaps.
   5. Compare the chatbot's scores and provisional ranking with the original scoring guide and the source interview notes, correcting any claim that is not supported.
   6. Ask a colleague involved in the process to check that candidates were assessed against the same criteria and that no protected characteristic or unrelated personal factor influenced the comparison.
   7. Record the human panel's final decision, reasons, dissenting views and evidence considered, then send the outcome through your normal recruitment process.

   Prompt

   You are helping with a UK hiring process. Do not make an automatic or final hiring decision, and do not use protected characteristics or proxies for them. Compare the candidates only against the job-related criteria below.
   
   Job title: [JOB TITLE]
   Job criteria, with importance for each criterion: [PASTE THE AGREED CRITERIA]
   Interview questions and scoring guide: [PASTE THE QUESTIONS AND SCORING GUIDE]
   Candidate interview evidence, labelled by candidate and question: [PASTE STRUCTURED NOTES]
   Any work sample or other evidence: [PASTE EVIDENCE OR WRITE NONE]
   
   For each candidate:
   1. Summarise only evidence actually present in the material.
   2. Score each criterion using the supplied scoring guide, marking insufficient evidence as "not evidenced" rather than guessing.
   3. Separate evidence from interpretation and identify contradictions between interviewers.
   4. Identify questions that were not asked consistently or criteria that were applied inconsistently.
   5. Flag any wording that could indicate bias, reliance on a protected characteristic, or a factor unrelated to the job.
   6. Explain what further evidence would be needed before deciding.
   7. Give a provisional ranking only if the evidence supports it, with reasons tied to the agreed criteria.
   
   End with a short decision record for a human hiring panel. State that the panel must make and record the final decision, check the process for consistency and discrimination, and keep the underlying evidence. Do not invent facts, scores or legal conclusions. This is not professional advice; refer a serious employment-law issue to an employment solicitor or qualified HR professional.

   Open it prefilled in ChatGPT or Claude, or copy it into Gemini, which takes no prefill link.