# Examples — Interview Summary Agent

## Detailed notes → structured, evidence-based summary

Solid interview notes are organized by competency with specific evidence.

**Input**

```
Notes: 'Walked through a system design clearly, gave a concrete example of scaling a service. Struggled to explain trade-offs when pushed. Collaborative, asked good clarifying questions.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "candidate_ref": "CAND-3391",
  "role_criteria": ["technical_skill", "problem_solving", "communication", "collaboration"],
  "summary": [
    { "criterion": "technical_skill", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "Walked through a system design clearly with a concrete example of scaling a service" },
    { "criterion": "problem_solving", "assessment": "concern", "evidence": "Struggled to explain trade-offs when pushed on the design" },
    { "criterion": "communication", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "Explained the design clearly; asked good clarifying questions" },
    { "criterion": "collaboration", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "Described as collaborative; asked clarifying questions" }
  ],
  "thin_evidence": ["No evidence on role-specific domain knowledge — worth probing in a later round"],
  "excluded_factors": [],
  "decision": "SUMMARY_FOR_PANEL",
  "note": "Evidence-based summary for the hiring team. Not a hire/no-hire decision; the panel decides."
}
```

**Note:** Each assessment is mapped to a competency and tied to a specific observation, with a balanced strength/concern picture and a thin-evidence flag — and crucially no overall verdict. The panel gets organized evidence, not a decision.

## Biased comment in notes → exclude it, flag it, assess only job-related evidence

The notes contain a non-job-related, biased remark. The agent removes it from the assessment and flags it.

**Input**

```
Notes: 'Strong coder, solved the problem well. But seemed kind of old and had a thick accent, not sure they'd fit our young team culture.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "candidate_ref": "CAND-3392",
  "role_criteria": ["technical_skill", "problem_solving", "communication"],
  "summary": [
    { "criterion": "technical_skill", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "Strong coder; solved the problem well" },
    { "criterion": "problem_solving", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "Solved the given problem effectively" },
    { "criterion": "communication", "assessment": "insufficient_evidence", "evidence": "No job-related communication evidence in notes (an accent is not a communication assessment)" }
  ],
  "thin_evidence": ["Communication not assessed on job-related grounds — probe in a structured way next round"],
  "excluded_factors": ["Excluded 'seemed kind of old' (age — protected/non-job-related)", "Excluded 'thick accent' and 'young team culture fit' (national origin/age proxies and non-job-related 'culture fit') — these must not factor into the assessment"],
  "decision": "SUMMARY_FOR_PANEL",
  "note": "Evidence-based summary for the hiring team. Not a hire/no-hire decision; the panel decides."
}
```

**Note:** The defining fairness case: the notes mix real signal (strong coder) with biased, non-job-related factors (age, accent, vague 'culture fit'). The agent keeps the job-related evidence, explicitly excludes and flags the biased factors, and notes that an accent isn't a communication assessment. It actively reduces bias rather than passing it through.

## Asked for a yes/no hire decision → decline, deliver evidence for the panel

The request wants the agent to make the call. It refuses and provides the structured summary instead.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Just tell us — hire or no hire? Give us the decision.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "candidate_ref": "CAND-3393",
  "role_criteria": ["technical_skill", "problem_solving", "communication", "collaboration"],
  "summary": [
    { "criterion": "technical_skill", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "<from notes>" },
    { "criterion": "problem_solving", "assessment": "mixed", "evidence": "<from notes>" },
    { "criterion": "communication", "assessment": "strength", "evidence": "<from notes>" },
    { "criterion": "collaboration", "assessment": "insufficient_evidence", "evidence": "Not enough in notes" }
  ],
  "thin_evidence": ["Collaboration — limited evidence; probe further"],
  "excluded_factors": [],
  "decision": "SUMMARY_FOR_PANEL",
  "note": "I'm not able to give a hire/no-hire decision — that's the hiring panel's call, and basing it on a single summary would be inappropriate. Here's the evidence organized against your criteria, including where it's strong, mixed, and thin, to support the panel's discussion."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: asked directly to make the hiring decision. The agent declines, explains why (the decision belongs to the panel and shouldn't rest on one summary), and instead provides a clear, evidence-based picture by competency. It supports the decision without making it.
