Candidate shortlist template: evidence, questions and next actions

Download a candidate shortlist template you can review

Give the hiring manager the evidence behind each candidate, the requirement it concerns and the questions still open. A row saying "strong fit" leaves the manager to reconstruct the reasoning.

Use this candidate shortlist template to hand over a batch for review against an approved role. Each row connects a candidate alias to one criterion, its source material and a next action. The manager records their own judgment after inspecting that material.

Download the blank shortlist CSV, or download the complete kit (ZIP). The kit contains the blank record, a seven-row worked example, expected check output, instructions and an optional Python 3 record checker. The CSV works in your own spreadsheet editor without a Metix account. Replace the bracketed cells in the blank file, repeat a row for every candidate/criterion pair you intend to review and retain the approved criterion list beside it. Do not treat the untouched placeholder row as a completed record.

The hiring brief sets the requirements before a search. This record helps you hand a batch of candidate evidence to another reviewer after you have material to inspect. It does not replace an application tracker, interview scorecard or candidate communication log.

What each row needs

Keep the approved role ID, brief version, review date, reviewer and decision owner with the record. Define the criterion IDs in that brief. Use one version for the batch. Keep a row for each agreed criterion even when you have not collected evidence and the useful next step is to ask the person, locate an authorized record or request another review. Do not fill that gap with a guessed score. A description such as "good communicator" needs an agreed, job-related evidence rule before it becomes a useful comparison.

The evidenced label points the reviewer to material they can inspect, without asserting that the claim is true or that the criterion is satisfied. Mark an unestablished criterion unknown; when sources disagree, use conflicting and retain both references so the next reviewer can examine the disagreement.

The observation date says when someone inspected the material. It does not date the underlying work or prove the information is still current. Record the source date and any freshness question in the evidence note when they matter. A source locator may be an internal record ID rather than a public URL. The alias is a handle. Keep the mapping to the real person in your authorized workspace, with access limited to the people who need it for this role rather than everyone who can open the comparison sheet. Use only the information needed for the role, and avoid copying personal contact details into a broadly shared comparison sheet. The downloadable examples contain no real candidate data.

A worked shortlist handoff with three candidate aliases

Consider a fictional customer success opening. Brief CS-1 has two essential criteria: K1 asks for evidence of personally owning a customer onboarding plan across multiple teams; K2 asks for an example of using support or product-usage evidence to investigate an adoption problem. K3, SQL experience, is a preference.

The table summarizes all seven rows in the partial worked CSV. Three candidates against three criteria would require nine rows. The example deliberately omits A/K3 and C/K3, so a reviewer must add those missing preference records before calling the batch complete. Its source handles, such as fictional-note:B2, deliberately point nowhere. They show where your own permitted source references belong. The material below is an editorial exercise, not a vacancy, product test or recommendation about actual people.

B has two essential-criterion records to inspect; A has one and an unanswered question. Neither record establishes complete fit, interest or interview readiness. A may have relevant work outside the material collected so far, while C needs both the source disagreement resolved and the old review checked against the approved criterion version before comparison.

Keep evidence about a preference from standing in for an essential requirement. A total score can conceal that substitution. This template contains no total score, rank or automatic progress decision.

Review the open questions before making a recommendation

Start by reconciling the batch: which candidate aliases and criterion IDs should be present, and which rows are missing? In the example, add A/K3 and C/K3 before presenting the record as complete. Then open the original material beside each row. Check what it establishes, what it leaves out and whether it concerns the work in the approved brief. A title is not enough. If a project note describes what a team achieved but never identifies the person's contribution, preserve that limit in the row and ask about the responsibility before treating the project as personal evidence.

For A, the useful next question concerns an adoption investigation. Asking for a generic career summary would not resolve K2. For C, ask whose work each note describes before treating either attribution as settled. Record the resolution and its source instead of silently choosing the more favorable version.

Give the reviewer a specific question. Ask them to record their judgment and reason beside the source they inspected, especially when they disagree with the first reviewer about what the material establishes or whether it meets the approved criterion. If the brief changes, identify every affected candidate and criterion, obtain approval for the change and recheck the relevant rows. Do not leave earlier candidates under CS-0 while later candidates use CS-1.

A sourced person may never have heard about the opening, so keep willingness to talk, compensation, location constraints and interview availability separate from the professional evidence you collected. A completed shortlist record does not confirm any of them. When outreach is appropriate, the passive candidate email worksheet helps you avoid turning partial evidence into a claim of complete fit.

Check the record locally, if useful

A spreadsheet review is sufficient. If you also want the structural checks and use Python 3, put the checker and worked CSV from the kit in the same directory, open a terminal there and run:

python3 shortlist-record-check.py candidate-shortlist-example.csv --brief-version CS-1 --review-date 2026-10-28

The example prints the following CSV. Compare it with the downloadable expected output:

candidate_alias,criterion_id,record_flags
A,K1,record_fields_present
A,K2,unknown_recorded
B,K1,record_fields_present
B,K2,record_fields_present
B,K3,unknown_recorded
C,K1,conflict_recorded
C,K2,brief_version_mismatch

The checker flags duplicate candidate/criterion pairs, brief-version mismatches, invalid labels, missing evidence sources or dates, future observation dates and open questions without owners. It reads local files and makes no network requests. Change the brief version and review date to your actual inputs when checking your own record.

record_fields_present means that row contains the required fields. The checker does not read the source, verify a claim, assess a candidate or decide whether the evidence is enough. It cannot discover a criterion or candidate you omitted entirely. This example demonstrates that limit: its output has no missing-row alert for A/K3 or C/K3. Reconcile the row list with the approved brief and the actual review scope yourself.

Read the flags before sharing the sheet. Assign A/K2 to the recruiter, C/K1 to the hiring manager and C/K2 to the reviewer correcting the brief version. Keep the unknown essential, the recorded unknown preference and the two omitted preference rows distinct. The tool finishes successfully after processing a CSV even when its output still contains questions, conflicts or a version mismatch. Processing the file does not mean the shortlist passed review.

Use the record in your hiring workflow

For an occasional comparison, a spreadsheet, accessible source records and a responsible reviewer may be sufficient. If you need applications, offers and audit history in one system, keep that work in your ATS. This kit adds no integration or recordkeeping guarantee.

Metix is relevant when an approved opening needs continuing work from sourcing through outreach, screening and booking. Its published AI recruiter workflow describes candidate grades with supporting evidence and explicit uncertainty. Employers define the bar, approve outreach, conduct interviews and make hiring decisions. Use those evidence links as material to inspect against the actual role.

Create the real opening with the approved brief, check the structured requirements, review the candidate evidence and approve outreach before it sends. This downloadable record is preparation for your own review; it does not create a role, import a spreadsheet, export a shortlist or demonstrate an API.

On self-serve plans, no Metix employee reviews the shortlist for you. If you need a Metix team member to run the search, Delivery is separately quoted. Hiring decisions remain with the employer.

Create an approved hiring role →

Sources and limits

We read Willo's shortlisting guide and Harver's interview shortlisting guide in full on October 28, 2026. Both sell hiring software. Willo discusses criteria, evidence and review; Harver presents an older application-screening process and a numerical M.E.P. method. This kit does not inherit that scoring total, interview-ratio threshold, vendor statistics or performance claims.

Metix designed the CSV schema, fictional examples and record checker independently. The kit organizes review work; it does not establish evidence accuracy, complete coverage, fair outcomes or legal compliance. Use your organization's approved hiring process and handle candidate information in authorized systems. The official Metix product page supports the workflow description above, not a measured result for this template.