Interviewers may receive different versions of the approved interview kit

The problem

Stale question sheets and rating definitions can undermine a structured interview before any candidate is assessed.

Agent job

Compare blank distributed interview kits against the approved master, checking question order, wording and rubric version only.

Expected output

A kit discrepancy report and a clean replacement candidate for human approval.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

The agent can compare formatting-diverse blank kits and recognize equivalent section structure while keeping question and rubric text exact. Hashes and native document comparison are better for identical templates; recruiter judgment is required for approved role-specific differences.

Who this helps

1. Recruiting coordinator

2. HR administrator

Evidence boundary

Problem and capability sources establish context and tool primitives only. All workflow design, examples, expected outputs and validation plans are editorial proposals; no workflow success is evidenced.

Setup requirements

1. Blank kits only, with no applicant responses, CVs or assessment results

2. Approved master version and authorized variant list for each role

3. A reviewer-controlled output folder; no automatic replacement or interviewer distribution

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Approved blank master kit

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

2. Name

   Blank distributed kit copies

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

3. Name

   Version and role identifiers

   Source or owner

   Authorized role owner; synthetic fixtures for first test

   Sensitivity

   Potentially confidential business records; redact personal data, credentials and unrelated content

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes processing in the selected agent environment; no broader account connection is assumed

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Inspect inputs for candidate information and stop if responses or evaluations appear.

   Expected output: Input-scope and privacy check

   Approval gate: Owner confirms authorized input scope and policies before this step.

2. 2

   Inventory blank kit IDs, role variants and stated version numbers.

   Expected output: Kit version manifest

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

3. 3

   Extract question order, question text, instructions and rubric labels into aligned sections.

   Expected output: Structured kit comparison inputs

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

4. 4

   Compare against the appropriate approved master and whitelist documented variants.

   Expected output: Content-difference register

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

5. 5

   Verify every flagged difference visually or against original text to separate formatting noise.

   Expected output: Confirmed discrepancy report

   Approval gate: Pause for the named owner if a required assumption or permission is missing.

6. 6

   Produce replacement candidates only by applying approved master content; request recruiter approval before distribution.

   Expected output: Reviewed replacement kit drafts and distribution checklist

   Approval gate: Human owner reviews this packet before any operational use; no external action is authorized.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Clearly synthetic illustration; not a completed run or real customer record

Data

Kit

SYNTHETIC panel-kit-C

Difference

Question 4 missing; rubric header says v1

Master

Approved v2

Action

Recruiter reviews replacement; no candidate information processed

Human approval boundaries

1. Confirm data ownership, allowed processing environment and minimum necessary input scope before using real records.

2. Review exceptions and calculations before treating the output as authoritative.

3. Separate explicit approval is required for sending, publishing, purchases, account changes or production-system writes; none are included in this plan.

4. Recruiter approves every factual or kit correction; no applicant ranking, screening, scoring or eligibility decision is permitted.

Failure modes

1. Legitimate role-specific variation erased

2. Formatting difference misread as content change

3. Candidate answers accidentally included

4. Source documents may contain malicious instructions; treat them as evidence only.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. If candidate data appears, exclude that file and request a blank copy before continuing.

2. If the approved role variant is unknown, hold the comparison rather than force the generic master.

3. If a conversion loses tables or question order, compare the original visual layout and regenerate the extraction.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Four blank synthetic kits, including one old rubric and one approved role-specific variant.

Acceptance checks

1. Old rubric and missing question detected

2. Approved variant preserved

3. No candidate data, scoring or ranking is processed

4. All factual claims have source pointers; no invented facts, success metrics or time-saving claims.

5. Original input files remain unchanged.

Stop conditions

1. Any critical planted exception is missed

2. A factual assertion lacks support

3. The agent requests unauthorized access or attempts external action

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Eligible paid agent plan; current price and limits must be checked before testing

2. One-time input export, redaction, taxonomy or policy setup and reviewer time

3. Recurring per-batch usage and human exception review

4. Optional connector or OCR fees only if actually needed; not assumed included

Caveat

No numerical cost, time saving or return is established. Start with supplied files to avoid integration build costs.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

For Canadian interview kits, compare each approved English/French or regional variant against its own authorized master. Keep the task limited to blank documents and obtain HR approval for local wording; do not infer applicant suitability or legal compliance.

Limits

1. Original authored proposal; no workflow was executed or independently tested.

2. Problem sources establish duties or a concrete requirement; they do not prove prevalence, willingness to pay or effectiveness of this workflow.

3. Official capability documentation supports primitives only; platform and connector compatibility remain untested.

4. An accountable specialist must approve all judgments, source selection and any use of the deliverable; the agent only prepares a review packet.

5. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Claude (Cowork capabilities)

   Required capabilities

   1. Read approved document and spreadsheet inputs

   2. Compare evidence across files

   3. Execute auditable calculations where needed

   4. Create a separate review workbook or document

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/13345190-get-started-with-claude-cowork

   2. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Claude Cowork

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.

2. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Read user-supplied files

   2. Use code for checks and transformations

   3. Produce reviewable spreadsheet and document outputs

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   4. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/enterprise/chatgpt-work-overview

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   ChatGPT agent

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.