---
id: A-014
type: artifact
title: "Conflicting feedback across different interviewers"
lang: en
registry: 2026.08.2
canonical: https://hoba.work/artifacts/A-014
json: https://hoba.work/api/v1/artifacts/A-014.json
---

# Conflicting feedback across different interviewers

Feedback from one round praises architectural depth while another round claims insufficient technical background.

> **On the canonical path** — [Declined, with a reason that can be acted on](https://hoba.work/process#WF-003-declined)
>
> Not every candidate is hired, and a decline is not a deviation. What makes it part of this path is that it arrives, it names the stage it happened at and the criterion that decided it, and it says whether applying again is worth anything.
>
> This entry is one of the ways that commitment stops being kept.

## At a glance

- Stage: Technical, Team
- Evidence: supported

## What it looks like

Composite excerpts, written to be typical rather than copied. No particular message, company or person is quoted here.

**Two rounds, two verdicts** · same candidate, four days apart — *reconstruction*

```
Subject: Consolidated feedback

  Round 2 (systems): Strong architectural depth. Reasoned clearly about consistency trade-offs and failure modes. Recommend proceed.
> Round 4 (technical): Insufficient depth for the level. Struggled to move past a first-pass solution. Recommend do not proceed.
  Final decision: do not proceed.
```

*What to notice* Both notes are about the same person in the same week. At least one of them is measuring something other than the candidate.

**What the two rounds actually asked** — *reconstruction*

```
  08:30 Interviewer B  Round 2 — Walk me through how you would keep two regions in sync when the link between them drops.
> 03:10 Interviewer D  Round 4 — Here is a string parsing problem. You have twenty-five minutes.
```

*What to notice* The rounds did not disagree about the candidate; they measured different things and reported both as depth.

## From each side

The same entry from inside each position that meets it: what reaches them, what it means from there, and what happens next given what they control.

### Candidate

- **What reaches them:** Two verdicts from the same week: one round rating architectural depth highly, another finding depth insufficient for the level, and one negative decision under them.
- **What it means from there:** The rounds asked different questions and both reported the answer as depth. Which of the two the decision rests on is not stated.
- **What happens next:** Asks for the consolidated rubric summary, and records what each round actually asked alongside what each concluded.

### Hiring manager

- **What reaches them:** Two written notes on the same candidate from rounds they did not sit in, each using the word depth for a different exercise.
- **What it means from there:** Those notes are the whole of what is available about those rounds; nothing in them separates a disagreement about the candidate from a difference between the two exercises.
- **What happens next:** Sets who interviews and what each round asks, and closes the split with a decision rather than a re-run. A hire made over a recorded negative note carries their name if it goes wrong.

### Recruiter

- **What reaches them:** Two recommendations pointing opposite ways and a decision line under them. The scores behind each recommendation are not in the recruiter's view.
- **What it means from there:** One reason has to be written to the candidate out of two notes that do not agree. Anything said beyond the recorded decision can be quoted back later.
- **What happens next:** Sends the outcome in wording that stays inside what was written down, and moves the requisition on. Reopening a recorded decision sits with the hiring manager, not the recruiter.

## What this observation does NOT establish

- Does not prove bad faith; highlights lack of rubric calibration across the hiring committee.

## Diagnostic probes

- **PROBE-A-014-1** (low) — Request aggregated hiring rubric summary from talent partner. → Reveals whether team had misaligned internal evaluation criteria.

---

hoba — a public, versioned atlas of hiring obstacles. Content CC BY-SA 4.0. This document is generated from the registry; the canonical page is linked above.